A way of describing entropy is to say that nature tends to produce disorder
from order.

Clean your room and put everything in order and it tends to become disordered.
Metal tends to oxidize (rust) and disintegrate. Wood tends to rot. Living
things tend to become feeble and die. Rocks tend to become dust. Mountains
erode away. Seas become filled with silt. Ice in a glass melts and the
molecules disperse. Warm tends to become cold. Clothes become ragged.
Fortunes decline. Water evaporates and disperses in the atmosphere.

In short, everything that is highly complex or organized requires the
continuous addition of energy to stay that way.

In the beginning was the void and entropy reigned supreme. That means that
whatever, if anything, existed then it was evenly distributed so that there
was no distinction of time or place because everywhere and everywhen was
exactly the same.

For some reason entropy decreased. They tell us it happened all at once in a
"Big Bang". Since time is relative, I am not sure that the phrase, "all at
once" is appropriate.

At any rate there exists an expanding universe which contains things of an
increasing complexity in which entropy tends to increase but in which energy
counteracts this tendency and produces, in a universe of chaos, islands of
complexity or increased order. This means that there is the conception of
time and place because everywhere and everywhen are no longer alike.

As man has developed science to try to understand the universe in which, he
thinks, he exists, he has found that what seems to be true is actually much
more complex than it seems.

First there is the problem of size or scale. It is easy to understand that if
you are a beetle in horse shit then the world, from your perspective, consists
mainly of horse shit. As man developed the capacity to see things on a micro
scale such as the cells that make up living things or the elements that make
up molecules and to see things on a macro scale such as the earth, the stars,
galaxies and complex entities such as black holes which it was not obvious
even existed, it became evident that man was much like the beetle in horse
shit. I would argue that that beetle is unable to conceive of the elements
that make up horse shit or of the skyscraper visible in the distance from the
pasture in which he lives. This is not to say that the beetle is dumb. It is
to say that he lacks proper perspective to understand. Maybe that is the
definition of dumb :)?

It seems that the things which we perceive in this world do not even exist, at
least as we see them. For instance, the solid door to your house is to a very
large extent empty space with widely scattered nuclei of atoms and some
electrons which are not really any place. The person who is your friend or
spouse is actually just a collection of specialized cells living in an evolved
symbiosis. The blue sky above you is actually just a thin shell of mixed
gases around a planet composed of slightly more solid matter. The little
stars you see in the sky are unimaginably huge and are themselves in a galaxy
in which they are little more significant than the individual atoms in your
door. Galaxies themselves may be little more than parts in some larger
entity. The protons and neutrons in the atoms in your door are actually made
up of vibrating strings or some such smaller entities and we have no idea what
those are made of; perhaps some form of energy, but when you get down to that
scale what does that even mean?

When Albert Einstein was a boy he was taught that there were two types of
things in the world, matter and energy. He found that those two things could
be converted one to the other, so they were not actually two things at all.
He also found that the concept of time was incorrect and, it may be that time
is a fourth dimension, or maybe it is simply an artificial construct and does
not exist at all as we perceive it.

Anyway our perception is that the energy of the "Big Bang" produced matter
mainly in the form of hydrogen, the simplest element, and in doing so
decreased entropy to the extent that the universe was not homogeneous and thus
time and place could be distinguished.

Gravitational attraction of hydrogen atoms caused them to come together into
increasingly tight groups of coalescing gas clouds, progenitors of suns.
Collisions of hydrogen atoms driven by energy produces helium and from that
decreasing amounts of all the other heavier elements. Existence of these
elements and energy in a primordial soup of chaos, causes islands of increased
complexity in the chaos which are stars, planets and the other stuff which we
think of as the universe.

At a smaller scale energy applied during a long period of time to this soup of
elements gathered in planets can eventually produce amino acids and from
those life can eventually arise due to random collisions and changes over
time. Research "abiogenesis". Due to a process called evolution, which means
that that which is able to survive and reproduce will and that which is not
will not, life also becomes more complex leading to what we now perceive as
the present situation. See also "symbiogenesis".

Life implies reproduction and some life evolved from asexual reproduction to
sexual reproduction which, not only had evolutionary advantages, but also led
to social relationships. These relationships evolved into the development of
culture and social groupings which led to the development of religion and
politics and economics and science.

Some would argue that this degree of complexity could not be the result of
chance changes. But complexity amid chaos only requires time and change.
Change is self evident once entropy is no longer one hundred percent ascendant
and time is sufficient because it is relative.

Another idea is that the complexity of the universe is possible because the
universe and its complexity is only an illusion and what we perceive is only a
thought or dream in the consciousness of some larger entity.

"Buddha knows that nothing happening is real. We only think it is real. Close
your eyes, sleeping, coma, alive, dead; it's the same thing. Finally at the
end we will find a big nothing. All empty. Never to come back again. "

Another question involves the idea that since complexity is created by random
events such as collisions of atoms, then it follows that whether a particular
such event does or does not occur will change the nature of the ensuing
universe or world. This means that it may be that there are an infinite
number of worlds because each possible world caused by each such occurrence
exists as much as any other world. This is the, so called, "Many Worlds"
theory. For example, if you are in a car accident, you may or may not die. By
the "Many Worlds" theory there exists a universe in which you did die and
another in which you did not. For that matter there also exist worlds in
which you fully recovered and others in which you are disabled in various
ways. So it may be that the universe we perceive is only one of an infinite
number of such universes.

Many Worlds

Horn of Time

So we are at a point in what we perceive as time and in space at what we
perceive as a specific place. Behind us in time the universe contracts to a
single point or to non-existence as in looking back through a horn of plenty
and ahead of us in time it expands. And this particular horn may be one of an
infinite number. And the universe may consist of more dimensions than we know
and the space and time that makes up this universe may be curved or otherwise
shaped by the masses within it in ways we have not yet imagined.

This idea of prespective of size in space is best described in words by H. G.
Wells in "A Short History of the World" as follows:

"If, then, we represent our earth as a little ball of one inch diameter, the
sun would be a big globe nine feet across and 323 yards away, that is about a
fifth of a mile, four or five minutes’ walking. The moon would be a small pea
two feet and a half from the world. Between earth and sun there would be the
two inner planets, Mercury and Venus, at distances of one hundred and twenty-
five and two hundred and fifty yards from the sun. All round and about these
bodies there would be emptiness until you came to Mars, a hundred and seventy-
five feet beyond the earth; Jupiter nearly a mile away, a foot in diameter;
Saturn, a little smaller, two miles off; Uranus four miles off and Neptune six
miles off. Then nothingness and nothingness except for small particles and
drifting scraps of attenuated vapour for thousands of miles. The nearest star
to earth on this scale would be 40,000 miles away."

"These figures will serve perhaps to give one some conception of the immense
emptiness of space in which the drama of life goes on."

"For in all this enormous vacancy of space we know certainly of life only upon
the surface of our earth. It does not penetrate much more than three miles
down into the 4,000 miles that separate us from the centre of our globe, and
it does not reach more than five miles above its surface. Apparently all the
limitlessness of space is otherwise empty and dead."

After the above discussion about science and philosophy and the nature of the
world in which we live and after further reading in the fields of physics, and
chemistry and history of thought and quantum mechanics and astrophysics and
mathematics and other webs of knowledge combined by some neurological process
in what I take to be me, I realized that it may all be a matter of relativity
as Einstein began to faintly glimpse. It may be that he simply didn't realize
the implications of relativity.

I would argue that the basic questions; what is the nature of the world?, when
did it all begin?, how? and others suffer both in the posing of the question
and in the expectations of the answer from a lack of perspective both of what
we are and where we are within the larger whole. The answer to all our
questions may lie in realizing that its all a matter of relativity; relativity
of such things as time and space but also of other things such as the nature
of being, dimensions, worlds and things of which we are not even aware.

For instance, I read an example explaining part of Einstein's theory of
relativity that to make a date it is necessary to specify a place to meet but
also a time, thus confirming time as a fourth dimension. This led me to the
following train of thought once I realized that this example depended entirely
upon a number of assumptions that we all make without thinking because of our
perspective.

Let's assume that I don't know anything. I don't know me and I don't know
you. So our objective is to get aquainted. Therefore we decide to make a
date to do so. Let's start with the assumption that we are beings in zero
dimensions. Therefore, whatever or whoever we are, we exist in a situation
where there is no differentiation of what exists. That means that we must
meet at location zero because that's all there is. It also means that we do
not need to meet to get aquainted because if we are in a situation of no
differentiation then there is no difference between you and I and we do not
exist as separate beings or actually do not exist at all.

Now let's assume that we are beings of one dimension. We decide to meet at 3.
Since one dimension is a line it only takes one number for us to meet.
However, this number assumes two things. It assumes that we both know the
origin of the line and we are agreed on the scale or unit of measurement. So
for us to meet we have to have, even in one dimension, a sense of scale and
location.

If we are to meet in two dimensions, we would need two numbers, say 5 and 7,
to get together. These also assume that we have an origin and a perspective
as to unit of measure. Depending on who we are and how we see the world, our
origin could be any place and our scale of the meaning of 5 and 7 could be
anything from microns to light years or anything even smaller or larger.

Now let's go to the problem from our present perspective which we used to
think was in a three dimensional world and let's examine the situation in
detail. Since we are in the world we perceive, then we can assume that there
is differentation in, at least time and space, and therefore there is
differentation in us. I am not you and you are not me, so it makes sense that
we might want to get acquainted and learn to know each other. I say, "I'll
meet you at 610 Main Street at 3 pm on July 23, 2011." That makes sense to
both you and I so we say, "It's a date." The word "date" to us in this
context means a getting together and does not refer to a calendar.

You go to 610 Main Street at the agreed time and there is a problem. You
can't find me. It seems that 610 main street is a skyscraper with many
stories above ground and many levels below ground and it has many rooms on
every level and I haven't specified my scale so you don't know whether you are
looking for a human, an insect, a protozoa, or a godzilla. In other words you
don't know my scale.

The point is that for us to meet we can only do so if we have already made a
great number of assumptions about our meeting, so we are only able to meet if
we share the same perspective. In the same way the answers to questions we
ask, it would seem to me, depend on the perspective from which we start. So
from our perspective we calculate that the "Big Bang" was 13.7 billion years
ago. But that assumes a time perspective. If we say it was at the center of
our expanding universe, then we are assuming one of many worlds and we are
also assuming that time itself is constant and not relative as is space. I
would submit that we have no basis for any of these assumptions. It may be
that if we tried to approach the "Big Bang" the perspective of time and space
would change just as our perspective does in diving into a fractal image so
that before we even got to our objective both would change in scale so that
our original answer has a different meaning. Therefore I conclude that, it
may be, that there was no "Big Bang" simply because at that time and place,
time and space had different meanings.

Saying this another way, we approach the "Big Bang" as a normal sized human
but, as we do, our size becomes smaller or changes scale so that both space
and time relative to us becomes bigger and therefore we are never actually
able to reach our origin but time and space simply open out as our scale
changes and we are always the same distance from our origin as when we
started.

"How long is the coast of England?" "I don't know but I'll take this
yardstick and measure it." Later I report to you that the coast of England is
x yards long. You say, "Please double check that but this time measure it
using this foot long ruler." I do so and since there are three feet in a yard
I expect to get 3 times x feet. Lo and behold, I actually get quite a bit
more than 3 times x feet. Students of chaos theory and fractals expected
this. It turns out that the smaller the unit we use to measure the coast of
England, the larger the length of the coast becomes. The same principal may
apply to using science and measurements to obtain other information as in the
discussion above.

Can a human pass through a concrete wall ten feet thick. NO!

Can a neutrino pass through a concrete wall ten feet thick. Not only can it
pass through, but from the viewpoint of a neutrino the question is meaningless
because there is no conception of a concrete wall ten feet thick. It's all a
matter of perspective and scale and relativity.

In the scale in which we exist Newton's Laws described physics perfectly for a
few hundred years. Then Einstein showed that Newton's laws only applied at
our scale, that in other conditions such as nearing the speed of light
Newton's laws gave close but not exact answers. Newton's laws may have been
accurate to 15 or 20 decimal places but were not exact.

The Greeks said the smallest particle was an atom, then it became protons,
neutrons, and electrons, then electrons and quarks, now strings. We thought
the largest object was a mountain, then a planet, then a sun, then a solar
system, then a galaxy then even larger.

It seems that we keep trying to define all questions and answers from our
perspective never realizing that as perspective or scale changes the questions
and answers may change too so that perfectly fine answers at one scale may not
apply perfectly or, at all, at another scale and that the answer to
everything, what Einstein called the unified field theory, may not apply if
the scale changes by several orders of magnitude because that will give a
whole new perspective to both the questions and answers.

It may be that the objects we see as galaxies are only individual cells in the
body of some larger being and that for that being the time we count as a
million years is as but a second.

Also look up references to and consider the Gaia hypothesis. Also note that
if space is curved, maybe time is also.

An essay in which we interview a few denizens of the known universe to find
out more about them and get to know them better. It will be noted that these
denizens are chosen as representatives of different scales and therefore
perspectives. It would, of course, be possible to go to other scales to
conduct such interviews, either larger or smaller, than the scales we have
chosen. However, since we humans exist in a middle perspective, we have not
learned enough about denizens of other scales larger than galaxies or smaller
than atoms to interview them with confidence.

I am an atom of the chemical element hydrogen. I am an electrically neutral
atom containing a single positively-charged proton and a single negatively
charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force. Atomic hydrogen
comprises about 75% of the elemental mass of the universe. (Most of the
universe's mass is not in the form of chemical elements - that is, "baryonic"
matter - but is made up of dark matter and dark energy.)

In everyday life on Earth, isolated hydrogen atoms (usually called "atomic
hydrogen" or, more precisely, "monatomic hydrogen") are extremely rare.
Instead, hydrogen tends to combine with other atoms in compounds, or with
itself to form ordinary (diatomic) hydrogen gas, H2. "Atomic hydrogen" and
"hydrogen atom" in ordinary English use have overlapping meanings. For
example, a water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms, but does not contain
atomic hydrogen (which would refer to isolated hydrogen atoms).

The H-H bond is one of the strongest bonds in chemistry, with a bond
dissociation enthalpy of 435.88 kJ/mol at 298 K. As a consequence of this
strong bond, H2 dissociates to only a minor extent until higher temperatures.
At 3000K, the degree of dissociation is only 7.85%.

H2 = 2 H

Hydrogen atoms are so reactive that they combine with almost all elements.

The most abundant isotope, hydrogen-1, protium, or light hydrogen, contains no
neutrons; other isotopes of hydrogen, such as deuterium, contain one or more
neutrons.

Hydrogen is not found without its electron in ordinary chemistry (room
temperatures and pressures), as ionized hydrogen is highly chemically
reactive. When ionized hydrogen is written as "H+" as in the solvation of
classical acids such as hydrochloric acid, the hydronium ion, H3O+, is meant,
not a literal ionized single hydrogen atom. In that case, the acid transfers
the proton to H2O to form H3O+.

Ionized hydrogen without its electron, or free protons, are common in the
interstellar medium, and solar wind.

An electron shell may be thought of as an orbit followed by electrons around
an atom's nucleus. The closest shell to the nucleus is called the "1 shell"
(also called "K shell"), followed by the "2 shell" (or "L shell"), then the "3
shell" (or "M shell"), and so on farther and farther from the nucleus. The
shell letters K, L, M, ... are alphabetical.

Each shell can contain only a fixed number of electrons: The 1st shell can
hold up to two electrons, the 2nd shell can hold up to eight electrons, the
3rd shell can hold up to 18, and 4th shell can hold up to 32 and so on. Since
electrons are electrically attracted to the nucleus, an atom's electrons will
generally occupy outer shells only if the more inner shells have already been
completely filled by other electrons. However, this is not a strict
requirement: Atoms may have two or even three outer shells that are only
partly filled with electrons.

The electrons in the partially filled outermost shell (or shells) determine
the chemical properties of the atom; it is called valence shell.

Each shell consists of one or more subshells, and each subshell consists of
one or more atomic orbitals.

The valence shell is the outermost shell of an atom. It is usually (and
misleadingly) said that the electrons in this shell make up its valence
electrons, that is, the electrons that determine how the atom behaves in
chemical reactions. Just as atoms with complete valence shells (noble gases)
are the most chemically non-reactive, those with only one electron in their
valence shells (alkalis) or just missing one electron from having a complete
shell (halogens) are the most reactive.

However, this is a simplification of the truth. The electrons that determine
how an atom reacts chemically are those that travel farthest from the nucleus,
that is, those with the most energy. As stated in Subshells, electrons in the
inner subshells have less energy than those in outer subshells. This effect is
great enough that the 3d electrons have more energy than 4s electrons, and are
therefore more important in chemical reactions, making them valence electrons
although they are not in the so-called valence shell.

Example:

Hydrogen, atomic number 1, has one proton and possibly one neutron in its
nucleus. Since it has one electron and the inner or K shell can hold two then
it is missing one electron from its valence shell. Oxygen, atomic number 8,
has 8 electrons. That means that its K shell is filled with 2 electrons
leaving 6 electrons for the L shell. Since the L shell can hold 8 electrons
the oxygen atom is missing two electrons. When water forms from Oxygen in the
presence of Hydrogen, one O atom combines with 2 H atoms thus filling the
valence shells of all three atoms in the resulting molecule.

Elements are identified by the nuclei of the atoms of which they are made. For
example, an atom having six protons in its nucleus is carbon, and one having
26 protons is iron. There are over 80 naturally occurring elements, with
uranium (92 protons) being the heaviest (heavier nuclei have been produced in
reactors on Earth). Nuclei also contain certain neutrons, usually in numbers
greater than the number of protons.

Once the universe was created by the Big Bang, the only abundant elements
present were hydrogen (H) and helium (He). These elements were not evenly
distributed throughout space, and under the influence of gravity they began to
"clump" to form more concentrated volumes. These
clumps would eventually form galaxies and stars, and through the internal
processes by which a star "shines" higher mass elements were formed inside the
stars. Upon the death of a star (in a nova or a supernova) these high mass
elements, along with even more massive nuclei created during the nova or
supernova, were thrown out into space to eventually become incorporated into
another star or celestial body.

I am a molecule, a chemical substance with the chemical formula H2O. One
molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms connected by covalent
bonds. I am a liquid at temperatures above 0 degrees Centigrade at sea level,
and a gas or vapor at temperatures above 100 degrees Centigrade, and I often
co-exist on Earth with my solid state, ice, and gaseous state (water vapor or
steam). I also exist in a liquid crystal state near hydrophilic surfaces.

I cover 71% of the Earth's surface, and am vital for all known forms
of life. On Earth, 96.5% of the planet's water is found in oceans, 1.7% in
groundwater, 1.7% in glaciers and the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland, a
small fraction in other large water bodies, and 0.001% in the air as vapor,
clouds (formed of solid and liquid water particles suspended in air), and
precipitation. Only 2.5% of the Earth's water is freshwater, and 98.8%
of that water is in ice and groundwater. Less than 0.3% of all freshwater is
in rivers, lakes, and the atmosphere, and an even smaller amount of the
Earth's freshwater (0.003%) is contained within biological bodies and
manufactured products.

On Earth I move continually through the hydrological cycle of evaporation
and transpiration (evapotranspiration), condensation, precipitation, and
runoff, usually reaching the sea. Evaporation and transpiration contribute to
the precipitation over land.

Much of the universe's water is produced as a byproduct of star formation.
When stars are born, their birth is accompanied by a strong outward wind of
gas and dust. When this outflow of material eventually impacts the surrounding
gas, the shock waves that are created compress and heat the gas. The water
observed is quickly produced in this warm dense gas.

On 22 July 2011, a report described the discovery of a gigantic cloud of water
vapor, containing "140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans
combined," around a quasar located 12 billion light years from Earth.
According to the researchers, the "discovery shows that water has been
prevalent in the universe for nearly its entire existence."

Water has been detected in interstellar clouds within the Milky Way galaxy.
Water probably exists in abundance in other galaxies, too, because its
components, hydrogen and oxygen, are among the most abundant elements in the
universe. Interstellar clouds eventually condense into solar nebulae and solar
systems such as ours.

Virus particles (known as virions) consist of two or three parts: i) the
genetic material made from either DNA or RNA, long molecules that carry
genetic information; ii) a protein coat that protects these genes; and in some
cases iii) an envelope of lipids that surrounds the protein coat when they are
outside a cell. The shapes of viruses range from simple helical and
icosahedral forms to more complex structures. The average virus is about one
one-hundredth the size of the average bacterium. Most viruses are too small to
be seen directly with an optical microscope.

The origins of viruses in the evolutionary history of life are unclear: some
may have evolved from plasmids - pieces of DNA that can move between cells -
while others may have evolved from bacteria. In evolution, viruses are an
important means of horizontal gene transfer, which increases genetic
diversity. Viruses are considered by some to be a life form, because they
carry genetic material, reproduce, and evolve through natural selection.
However they lack key characteristics (such as cell structure) that are
generally considered necessary to count as life. Because they possess some but
not all such qualities, viruses have been described as "organisms at the edge
of life".

About 5,000 viruses have been described in detail,although there are millions
of different types. Viruses are found in almost every ecosystem on Earth and
are the most abundant type of biological entity.

I am a single celled bacteria, a living organism. Currently, estimates of the
total number of species of bacteria on Earth range from about 10 million to a
billion, but these estimates are tentative, and may be off by many orders of
magnitude. By comparison, there are probably between 10 and 30 million species
of animals, the vast majority of them insects. The number of scientifically
recognized species of animals is about 1,250,000. There are almost 300,000
recognized species of plants.

I live in the mucus of the a tube like structure used for transport of the
waste products, which may be liquids, solids, or gases, of a larger
multicellular organic being called a mammal. So I normally live in a moist,
dark, airless environment of waste products and billions of other single
celled organisms similar to myself but I am capable of surviving as a cyst on
environmental surfaces for months.

My host beings give birth to living young of their species. I normally
colonize a mammal infant's gastrointestinal tract within 40 hours of birth,
arriving with food or water or with the individuals handling the child. In the
bowel, I adhere to the mucus of the large intestine. I am the primary
facultative anaerobe of the human gastrointestinal tract. (Facultative
anaerobes are organisms that can grow in either the presence or absence of
oxygen.)

I, of course, have no idea of the macro environment in which my host animal
lives and am only familar with my micro environment.

I have a mass of 1 to 5 ten thousandths of a milligram and I am about about 2
micrometres long and 0.5 micrometres in diameter, with a cell volume of 0.6 -
0.7 cubic micrometers.

This corresponds to a wet mass of about 1 picogram (pg), assuming that the
cell consists mostly of water. The dry mass of a single cell can be estimated
as 20% of the wet mass, amounting to 0.2 pg. About half of the dry mass of a
bacterial cell consists of carbon, and also about half of it can be attributed
to proteins. Therefore, a typical fully grown 1-liter culture of Escherichia
coli (at an optical density of 1.0, corresponding to ca. 109 cells/ml) yields
about 1 g wet cell mass. (A picogram is .000000000001 grams.)

My small size is extremely important because it allows for a large surface
area-to-volume ratio which allows for rapid uptake and intracellular
distribution of nutrients and excretion of wastes. At low surface area-to-
volume ratios the diffusion of nutrients and waste products across the
bacterial cell membrane limits the rate at which microbial metabolism can
occur, making the cell less evolutionarily fit.

Bacteria are prokaryotic organisms that reproduce asexually. Bacterial
reproduction most commonly occurs by a kind of cell division called binary
fission. Binary fission results in the formation of two bacterial cells that
are genetically identical.

The ancestors of modern bacteria, like me, were single-celled microorganisms
that were the first forms of life to appear on Earth, about 4 billion years
ago. For about 3 billion years, all organisms were microscopic, and bacteria
and archaea were the dominant forms of life.

Most bacteria have a single circular chromosome that can range in size from
only 160,000 base pairs in the endosymbiotic bacteria Candidatus Carsonella
ruddii, to 12,200,000 base pairs in the soil-dwelling bacteria Sorangium
cellulosum.

Many bacteria such as myself have two distinct modes of movement: forward
movement (swimming) and tumbling. The tumbling allows us to reorient and
makes our movement a three-dimensional random walk.

A eukaryote is an organism whose cells contain complex structures enclosed
within membranes. The defining membrane-bound structure that sets
eukaryotic cells apart from prokaryotic cells is the nucleus, or nuclear
envelope, within which the genetic material is carried.

All large complex organisms are eukaryotes, including animals, plants and
fungi. The group also includes many unicellular organisms.

Cell division in eukaryotes is different from that in organisms without a
nucleus (Prokaryote). It involves separating the duplicated chromosomes,
through movements directed by microtubules. There are two types of division
processes. In mitosis, one cell divides to produce two genetically identical
cells. In meiosis, which is required in sexual reproduction, one diploid cell
(having two instances of each chromosome, one from each parent) undergoes
recombination of each pair of parental chromosomes, and then two stages of
cell division, resulting in four haploid cells (gametes). Each gamete has just
one complement of chromosomes, each a unique mix of the corresponding pair of
parental chromosomes.

The Archaea constitute a domain of single-celled microorganisms which have no
cell nucleus or any other membrane-bound organelles within their cells.

Bacteria were also involved in the second great evolutionary divergence, that
of the archaea and eukaryotes. Here, eukaryotes resulted from ancient bacteria
entering into endosymbiotic associations with the ancestors of eukaryotic
cells, which were themselves possibly related to the Archaea. This
involved the engulfment by proto-eukaryotic cells of alpha-proteobacterial
symbionts to form either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes, which are still found
in all known Eukarya (sometimes in highly reduced form, e.g. in ancient
"amitochondrial" protozoa). Later on, some eukaryotes that already contained
mitochondria also engulfed cyanobacterial-like organisms. This led to the
formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants. There are also some algae that
originated from even later endosymbiotic events. Here, eukaryotes engulfed a
eukaryotic algae that developed into a "second-generation" plastid.
This is known as secondary endosymbiosis.

I am the consciousness of a living organism made up of about 10 trillion
specialized individual cells organized in a symbiotic relationship and as such
I am a home to more than ten times that many microoganisms including bacteria,
fungi, and archeaea which live inside my body. Most of these live in my
intestines although they also live on the surface and in deep layers of skin,
in the saliva and oral mucosa, in the conjunctiva, and in the gastrointestinal
tracts. They consist of well over 500 different species although 90% of them
come from about 30 or 40 species. Some of these organisms perform tasks that
are useful to me. However, the majority have no known beneficial or harmful
effect. It is estimated that the organisms living in my gut have around 100
times as many genes in aggregate as there are in the human genome.

These microorganisms make up about 1 to 3% of my total body weight. About 57%
of my total body weight is water.

My species evolved on a planet called Earth about one to two million years ago
although in its modern or present form my species has only existed for about
200,000 years. (A year is the amount of time required for my home planet,
Earth, to circle in an orbit around its sun.)

Living beings such as myself are able to reproduce themselves by means of a
pattern contained in a zipper like double helix arrangement of four organic
molecules. I am a mammal which means I have body hair and by sexual
reproduction give birth to living young grown from a fertilized egg inside the
body of the female of my species. These young are not precocious and must be
nourished by milk provided by the female and protected by adults for an
extended period of several years before they can survive and thrive on their
own.

I am a land dwelling animal on a planet hospitable to life existing with about
1.7 million other species as follows:

Category

Species

Totals

Vertebrate Animals

Mammals

5,490

Birds

9,998

Reptiles

9,084

Amphibians

6,433

Fishes

31,300

Total Vertebrates

62,305

Invertebrate Animals

Insects

1,000,000

Spiders and scorpions

102,248

Molluscs

85,000

Crustaceans

47,000

Corals

2,175

Others

68,827

Total Invertebrates

1,305,250

Plants

Flowering plants (angiosperms)

281,821

Conifers (gymnosperms)

1,021

Ferns and horsetails

12,000

Mosses

16,236

Red and green algae

10,134

Total Plants

321,212

Others

Lichens

17,000

Mushrooms

31,496

Brown algae

3,067

Total Others

51,563

TOTAL SPECIES

1,740,330

The species totals do not include domestic animals such as sheep,
goats and camels. Nor do they include single-celled organisms such as
bacteria.

My normal life span is generally from 50 to 100 years. If I survive my
environment long enough I will eventually cease to exist or die due to
deterioration of the cells and organs of my body due to age.

Human Characteristics

Bodies

upright, hairless, opposable thumb - can climb trees and walk on the
ground.

Tools & Food

can kill large animals, control of fire, making and use of baskets and
pottery.

I am a planet. I am the third rock from the sun, elliptical sphere shaped
about 8,000 miles in diameter; one of eight planets with orbits around Sol
which is a sun in one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy.

I consist of a an outer silicate solid crust, a highly viscous mantle
beginning 4 to 20 miles deep composed of silicate rocks that are rich in iron
and magnesium relative to the overlying crust, a liquid outer core about 1,408
miles thick composed of iron and nickle, 1800 miles below the Earth's surface,
that is much less viscous than the mantle, a solid inner core about 3,200
miles beneath the Earth's surface that is believed to consist of an iron-
nickel alloy and may have a temperature similar to the Sun's surface,
approximately 5700 K (5430 degrees Celcius) and a thin shell of water and soil
on the surface extending from a low of about 7 miles below sea level to a high
about 9 miles above. Above my surface is a thin layer of gases called the
atmosphere. This atmosphere is made up mostly of nitrogen and oxygen with
small amounts of argon, carbon dioxide and water vapor.

I have self regulating systems which sustain life on my surface. The Earth's
spheres are the many "spheres" into which the planet Earth is divided. The
four most often recognized are the atmosphere, the biosphere, the hydrosphere
and the geosphere. As a whole, the system is sometimes referred to as an
ecosphere.

I was formed about five billion years ago in a massive conglomeration and
bombardment of meteorites and comets. The immense amount of heat energy
released by the high-velocity bombardment melted the entire planet, and it is
still cooling off today. Denser materials like iron (Fe) from the meteorites
sank into the core of the Earth, while lighter silicates (Si), other oxygen
(O) compounds, and water from comets rose near the surface.

A day of 24 hours is defined as the time it takes me to rotate on my axis and
a year of 365 1/4 days is the amount of time in which I make one revolution
around the sun.

"Earth system science embraces chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics and
applied sciences in transcending disciplinary boundaries to treat the Earth as
an integrated system and seeks a deeper understanding of the physical,
chemical, biological and human interactions that determine the past, current
and future states of the Earth. Earth system science provides a physical basis
for understanding the world upon which humankind seeks to
achieve sustainability."

Gaia philosophy (named after Gaia, Greek goddess of the Earth) is a broadly
inclusive term for related concepts that living organisms on a planet will
affect the nature of their environment in order to make the environment more
suitable for life. This set of theories holds that all organisms on a life-
giving planet regulate the biosphere to the benefit of the whole. Gaia concept
draws a connection between the survivability of a species (hence its
evolutionary course) and its usefulness to the survival of other species.
The Gaia hypothesis deals with the concept of homeostasis, and claims the
resident life forms of a host planet coupled with their environment have acted
and act as a single, self-regulating system. This system includes the near-
surface rocks, the soil, and the atmosphere.

The Gaia hypothesis is sometimes viewed from significantly different
philosophical perspectives. Some environmentalists view it as an almost
conscious process, in which the Earth's ecosystem is literally viewed as a
single unified organism. Some evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, view
it as an undirected emergent property of the ecosystem: as each individual
species pursues its own self-interest, their combined actions tend to have
counterbalancing effects on environmental change. Proponents of this view
sometimes point to examples of life's actions in the past that have resulted
in dramatic change rather than stable equilibrium, such as the conversion of
the Earth's atmosphere from a reducing environment to an oxygen-rich one.

After much scientific criticism, many elements of the Gaia theory are now
considered within ecological science, basically consistent with the planet
Earth being the ultimate object of ecological study. Ecologists generally
consider the biosphere as an ecosystem and the Gaia theory, though a
simplification of that original proposed, to be consistent with a modern
vision of global ecology, relaying the concepts of biosphere and biodiversity.

Five principles:

The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system with
physical, chemical, biological, and human components. The interactions and
feedbacks between the component parts are complex and exhibit multi-scale
temporal and spatial variability. The understanding of the natural dynamics of
the Earth System has advanced greatly in recent years and provides a sound
basis for evaluating the effects and consequences of human-driven change.

Human activities are significantly influencing Earth's environment in many
ways in addition to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Anthropogenic
changes to Earth's land surface, oceans, coasts and atmosphere and to
biological diversity, the water cycle and biogeochemical cycles are clearly
identifiable beyond natural variability. They are equal to some of the great
forces of nature in their extent and impact. Many are accelerating. Global
change is real and is happening now.

Global change cannot be understood in terms of a simple Cause and effect
paradigm. Human-driven changes cause multiple effects that cascade through the
Earth System in complex ways. These effects interact with each other and with
local- and regional-scale changes in multidimensional patterns that are
difficult to understand and even more difficult to predict.

Earth System dynamics are characterised by critical thresholds and abrupt
changes. Human activities could inadvertently trigger such changes with severe
consequences for Earth's environment and inhabitants. The Earth System has
operated in different states over the last half million years, with abrupt
transitions (a decade or less) sometimes occurring between them. Human
activities have the potential to switch the Earth System to alternative modes
of operation that may prove irreversible and less hospitable to humans and
other life. The probability of a human-driven abrupt change in Earth's
environment has yet to be quantified but is not negligible.

In terms of some key environmental parameters, the Earth System has moved
well outside the range of the natural variability exhibited over the last half
million years at least. The nature of changes now occurring simultaneously in
the Earth System, their magnitudes and rates of change are unprecedented. The
Earth is currently operating in a no-analogue state.

I am a sun. I am the star at the center of the Solar System. I am almost
perfectly spherical and consist of hot plasma interwoven with magnetic
fields. I have a diameter of about 1,392,684 km, about 109 times
that of Earth, and my mass (about 2,1030 kilograms, 330,000 times that of
Earth) accounts for about 99.86% of the total mass of the Solar System.
Chemically, about three quarters of my mass consists of hydrogen, while
the rest is mostly helium. The remainder (1.69%, which nonetheless equals
5,628 times the mass of Earth) consists of heavier elements, including oxygen,
carbon, neon and iron, among others.

I formed about 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a
region within a large molecular cloud. Most of the matter gathered in the
center, while the rest flattened into an orbiting disk that would become the
Solar System. The central mass became increasingly hot and dense, eventually
initiating thermonuclear fusion in its core. It is thought that almost all
other stars form by this process. My stellar classification, based on spectral
class, is G2V, and is informally designated as a yellow dwarf, because my
visible radiation is most intense in the yellow-green portion of the spectrum
and although my color is white, from the surface of the Earth it may appear
yellow because of atmospheric scattering of blue light. In the spectral class
label, G2 indicates my surface temperature of approximately 5778 K (5505 °C),
and V indicates that I, like most stars, am a main-sequence star, and thus
generates my energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium. In my
core, I fuse 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second.

Once regarded by astronomers as a small and relatively insignificant star, I
am now thought to be brighter than about 85% of the stars in the Milky Way
galaxy, most of which are red dwarfs. My absolute magnitude is +4.83;
however, as the star closest to Earth, I am the brightest object in the
sky with an apparent magnitude of 26.74. My hot corona
continuously expands in space creating the solar wind, a stream of charged
particles that extends to the heliopause at roughly 100 astronomical units.
The bubble in the interstellar medium formed by the solar wind, the
heliosphere, is the largest continuous structure in the Solar System.

I am currently traveling through the Local Interstellar Cloud in the Local
Bubble zone, within the inner rim of the Orion Arm of the Milky Way galaxy. Of
the 50 nearest stellar systems within 17 light-years from Earth (the closest
being a red dwarf named Proxima Centauri at approximately 4.2 light-years
away), I rank fourth in mass. I orbit the center of the Milky Way at a
distance of approximately 24,000 - 26,000 light-years from the galactic
center, completing one clockwise orbit, as viewed from the galactic north
pole, in about 225-250 million years. Since our galaxy is moving with respect
to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) in the direction of the
constellation Hydra with a speed of 550 km/s, my resultant velocity with
respect to the CMB is about 370 km/s in the direction of Crater or Leo.

My mean distance from the Earth is approximately 149.6 million kilometers (1
AU), though the distance varies as the Earth moves from perihelion in January
to aphelion in July. At this average distance, light travels from the Sun
to Earth in about 8 minutes and 19 seconds. The energy of this sunlight
supports almost all life on Earth by photosynthesis, and drives Earth's
climate and weather.

I am a barred spiral galaxy 100,000-120,000 light-years in diameter containing
200-400 billion stars. I may contain at least as many planets, with an
estimated 10 billion of those orbiting in the habitable zone of their parent
stars. The Solar System is located within the disk, around two thirds of the
way out from the Galactic Center, on the inner edge of a spiral-shaped
concentration of gas and dust called the Orion-Cygnus Arm. The stars in the
inner 10,000 light-years are organized in a bulge and one or more bars. The
very center is marked by an intense radio source named Sagittarius A which is
likely to be a supermassive black hole. I rotate differentially, faster
towards the center and slower towards the outer edge. My rotational period is
about 200 million years at the position of the Sun. As a whole I am moving at
a velocity of 552 to 630 km per second, depending on the relative frame of
reference. I am estimated to be about 13.2 billion years old, nearly as old as
the Universe. Surrounded by several smaller satellite galaxies, I am part of
the Local Group of galaxies, which forms a subcomponent of the Virgo
Supercluster.

My stellar disk is approximately 100,000 light-years (30 kiloparsecs) in
diameter, and is, on average, about 1,000 ly (0.3 kpc) thick. As a guide to my
relative physical scale of the Milky Way, if I were reduced to 100 meters (110
yd) in diameter, the Solar System, including the hypothesized Oort cloud,
would be no more than 1 millimeter (0.039 in) in width. The nearest star,
Proxima Centauri, would be 4.2 mm (0.17 in) distant. Alternatively visualized,
if the Solar System out to Pluto were the size of a US quarter (1 inch or 25mm
in diameter) I would be a disk approximately 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) in
diameter, having roughly one-third the area of the United States.

I contain at least 100 billion stars and may have up to 400 billion stars. The
exact figure depends on the number of very low-mass, or dwarf stars, which are
hard to detect, especially at distances of more than 300 ly (90 pc) from the
Sun. As a comparison, the neighboring Andromeda Galaxy contains an estimated
one trillion stars. Filling the space between the stars is a disk of gas and
dust called the interstellar medium. This disk has at least a comparable
extent in radius to the stars, while the thickness of the gas layer ranges
from hundreds of light years for the colder gas to thousands of light years
for warmer gas. Both gravitational microlensing and planetary transit
observations indicate that there may be at least as many planets bound to
stars as there are stars in the Milky Way, while microlensing measurements
indicate that there are more rogue planets not bound to host stars than there
are stars. Earth-sized planets may be more numerous than gas giants.

The disk of stars in me does not have a sharp edge beyond which there are no
stars. Rather, the concentration of stars drops smoothly with distance from my
center. Beyond a radius of roughly 40,000 ly (12 kpc), the number of stars per
cubic parsec drops much faster with radius, for reasons that are not
understood. Surrounding the Galactic disk is a spherical Galactic Halo of
stars and globular clusters that extends further outward, but is limited in
size by the orbits of my two satellites, the Large and the Small Magellanic
Clouds, whose closest approach to the Galactic center is about 180,000 ly (55
kpc). At this distance or beyond, the orbits of most halo objects would be
disrupted by the Magellanic Clouds. Hence, such objects would likely be
ejected from my vicinity.

Estimates for my mass vary, depending upon the method and data used. At the
low end of the estimate range, my mass is 5.8X10^11 solar masses (M), somewhat
smaller than the Andromeda Galaxy. Measurements using the Very Long Baseline
Array in 2009 found velocities as large as 254 km/s for stars at my outer
edge, higher than the previously accepted value of 220 km/s. As the orbital
velocity depends on the total mass inside the orbital radius, this suggests
that I am more massive, roughly equaling the mass of Andromeda Galaxy at
7X10^11 M within 50 kiloparsecs (160,000 ly) of its center. A 2010 measurement
of the radial velocity of halo stars finds the mass enclosed within 80
kiloparsecs is 7X10^11 M. Most of my mass appears to be matter of unknown
form which interacts with other matter through gravitational but not
electromagnetic forces; this is dubbed dark matter. A dark matter halo is
spread out relatively uniformly to a distance beyond one hundred kiloparsecs
from my Galactic Center. Mathematical models of me suggest that my total mass
lies in the range 1-1.5X10^12 M.

I began as one or several small overdensities in the mass distribution in the
Universe shortly after the Big Bang. Some of these overdensities were the
seeds of globular clusters in which the oldest remaining stars in what is now
me formed. These stars and clusters now comprise my stellar halo. Within a few
billion years of the birth of the first stars, my mass was large enough so
that it was spinning relatively quickly. Due to conservation of angular
momentum, this led the gaseous interstellar medium to collapse from a roughly
spheroidal shape to a disk. Therefore, later generations of stars formed in
this spiral disk. Most younger stars, including the Sun, are observed to be in
the disk.

Since the first stars began to form, I have grown through both galaxy mergers
(particularly early in my growth) and accretion of gas directly from the
Galactic halo. I am currently accreting material from my two nearest satellite
galaxies, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, through the Magellanic
Stream. Direct accretion of gas is observed in high velocity clouds like the
Smith Cloud. However, my properties such as stellar mass, angular momentum,
and metallicity in my outermost regions suggest I have suffered no mergers
with large galaxies in the last 10 billion years. This lack of recent major
mergers is unusual among similar spiral galaxies; my neighbour, the Andromeda
Galaxy, appears to have a more typical history shaped by more recent mergers
with relatively large galaxies.

I and the Andromeda Galaxy are a binary system of giant spiral galaxies
belonging to a group of 50 closely bound galaxies known as the Local Group,
itself being part of the Virgo Supercluster.

Two smaller galaxies and a number of dwarf galaxies in the Local Group orbit
me. The largest of these is the Large Magellanic Cloud with a diameter of
20,000 light-years. It has a close companion, the Small Magellanic Cloud. The
Magellanic Stream is a peculiar streamer of neutral hydrogen gas connecting
these two small galaxies. The stream is thought to have been dragged from the
Magellanic Clouds in tidal interactions with me. Some of the dwarf galaxies
orbiting me are Canis Major Dwarf (the closest), Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical
Galaxy, Ursa Minor Dwarf, Sculptor Dwarf, Sextans Dwarf, Fornax Dwarf, and Leo
I Dwarf. The smallest Milky Way dwarf galaxies are only 500 light-years in
diameter. These include Carina Dwarf, Draco Dwarf, and Leo II Dwarf. There may
still be undetected dwarf galaxies, which are dynamically bound to me, as well
as some that have already been absorbed by me, such as Omega Centauri.
Observations through the Zone of Avoidance are frequently detecting new
distant and nearby galaxies. Some galaxies consisting mostly of gas and dust
may also have evaded detection so far.

Free your mind of the concept that time and space are anything other than
relative. In other words, they do not exist as we perceive them.

The history of science is a history of slowly pulling back the curtain of
knowledge and exposing more and more of what we don't know.

Before the Greeks the world was flat to the number of digits that were
significant at that time.

For over 1000 years of Greek civilization knowledge advanced.

Then with the rise of the power of religion in Europe and northern Africa the
advance of knowledge was stopped or slowed for another 1000 years and much
knowledge that had been gained was purposely destroyed. A number of
renaissance men as listed here kept the torch
of knowledge alive and advanced it.

Sir Issac Newton pulled back the curtain a little more by formulating Newton's
Laws.

Albert Einstein discovered that Newton's laws were only correct to the number
of digits that were significant at that time and that, on a more macro scale,
time and space and mass were relative and that mass and energy could be
converted one to the other.

I think that if one can grasp the concept of the absolute relativity of time
and space and realize that they do not exist as we see them, then one may be
able to understand the universe and our existence and more in a new light.

The arrow of time depends on the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy
increases in our world because there are more possible disordered states than
ordered states so things tend toward disorder.

Complete disorder would be nothingness. We know this is not the state of
existence because of the fact that we exist. So perhaps there is nothing out
to a great number of significant digits but so many zeros after the decimal
maybe there are some numbers. This would mean that dark energy or whatever is
there could at random be in the form of ordered regions in the nothingness so
that multiple universes could exist.

I have heard cosmologists say that, if this is the case, these universes would
vary greatly in the time it took to form them and in their size and in the
time of their existence. In my opinion this is an error because the statement
itself does not accept the absolute relativity of time and space. Who is to
say what is a great amount of time for them to form or to exist and what is a
small or a large universe. Those concepts only exist from our perspective. I
ask them to pull back the curtain a little more.

Life is the common denominator of us all.
Both the pauper and the rich man face death alike.
Death is the Great Equalizer.
At the end of the game the pawn and the King go into the same bag.
Life is the most precious thing we can possess, that and love.

Therefore the most important thing is how we choose to live our life. In the
end, on my deathbed, I hope I can say to myself that it was a life well lived.
What a tragedy in that situation to realize that the only life one will ever
have has been a waste or misused.

To be able to say to oneself, "Well done!", one must have defined a purpose to
his life. It behooves us to find what we feel is the purpose of existence.

Be aware that a life well lived does not imply a perfect life. Each person
must realize and accept the fact that perfection, by definition, is
impossible. Each of us tends to feel guilt because we are imperfect. We are
taught this as children when we have to be taught to behave as an adult. The
fact that adults are adults and we start out doing things wrong in their eyes
leads us to always feel that others are more perfect than ourselves. Many
people spend their entire lives trying to live up to an ideal of perfection
that has never existed except in their own minds. That has to do with the
Christian ideas of guilt, original sin, and divine forgiveness.

It is necessary though to have played as well as one can the hand that he is
dealt. "You got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em." "You are
a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars and you have a
right to be here."

Life is an experience. It is moral or good to enhance the human experience
for yourself and others. It is immoral to degrade the human experience for
yourself or others. Basically, it is good to make people happy and bad to
make them unhappy. Many ideas or actions may enhance this experience. Many
others may degrade it. This means that there is not just one set of good
things or one set of bad or evil things but there are many means to similar
ends.

Purpose of life - is it:

Ego gratification - Amass power, money, material goods?

Social - friends, family, relationships?

Creative

leave something behind?

improve world?

decrease entropy?

Existentialist - pleasure in existence?

Hedonist - Maximum pleasure?

Biological - reproduce?

Religious - serve God (& man)?

Student - achieve nirvana by learning as much as possible about life and
the universe?

A Metaphor for Life

I awoke early and stumbled out of my room and down to the beach. What to do
with my day? I scruffed the sand with my bare toes and it stuck in an
interesting shape. The next thing I knew I was on my hands and knees building
a sand castle. As the day progressed I continued and my sand castle became
more and more elaborate with towers and turrets and a drawbridge and boulders
around it. Other people scattered on the beach were swimming or sleeping or
reading. Some were also playing in the sand and building sand castles. No
one paid much attention to what I was doing and I paid little attention to
them.

By the time the tide began to come in, my sand castle was pretty complex. I
left the beach and the tide washed over my sand castle and soon there was no
trace of it left and the sand was as before.

The entire world is going to need to change its way of thinking and become
much more mature and responsible if we are going to have any chance of
surviving the challenges ahead. We still need to avoid nuclear war, develop
cheap clean energy, end the dictatorships, educate the fundamentalists,
industrialize the poor countries, save the global environment, and stabilize
the world's population.

Some people gossip about other people.
Some people talk about things and events.
Some people discuss ideas.

A few rules for living a well rounded life:
Physical - stay in good physical health with exercise and proper diet.
Mental - Learn, study, exercise the mind and stay curious.
Moral - Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you.
Respect others. (people, organisms, the environment.)
Try to be constructive, not destructive.
Social - cultivate social and family relationships.
Man is a social animal.

An outline for living:

First write a bucket list, a list of goals you hope to accomplish during your
lifetime.

This list may include the following types of things.

Acquire wealth and power and make a living.

Acquire friends and social relationships.

Be creative - create something to improve the world or for self satisfaction.

Have as much fun and pleasure in life as possible.

Marry and raise a family.

Serve others.

Learn as much as possible.

Enjoy existence.

The bucket list should be detailed listing individual items in enough detail
that you will know when you have accomplished that goal and then you can mark
it off your list.

For instance proper goals under the heading "marry and raise a family" might
include:

Get Mary Jones to marry me before I am 25 years old.

Have three kids with her and raise them until they give me grandchildren.

or under the heading "have fun":

Learn to skydive and go skydiving at least once a month.

Other goals might be written as in the following examples:

Make one million dollars by the time I am fifty years old.

Become a respected micro biologist and publish in the field.

Donate an hour of time to help the homeless at least once a week.

Play bridge with friends twice a month.

Study the history of ancient Greece.

Sit quietly under the stars or inside listening to classical music and
meditate every Sunday night.

Of course each individual's bucket list will be unique to that person and it
will not be set in stone but will be constantly amended as life happens.

The idea is that when you become older and more aware of your mortality, you
can say, "It has been a life well lived."

On the first of each year review your bucket list and from it create a list of
specific goals for the coming year, each of which will lead to the larger
goals from your bucket list.

On the first of each month review your list for the year and make a sub list
for that month.

On the first of each week review your monthly list and make a sub list for
that week.

Each morning review your weekly list and make a sub list for that day with the
items on that list ordered as to urgency and importance and include any
individual living items for that day such as "Pick up the laundry." or "Shop
for groceries."

Try your best each day to complete all the goals or items on that daily list
particularly those that are most urgent and/or important.

Comments on the Meaning of Life:

Pulitzer Prize winner Annie Dillard:

We are here to witness the creation and abet it. We are here to notice
each thing so each thing gets noticed. Together we notice not only each
mountain shadow and each stone on the beach but, especially, we notice the
beautiful faces and complex natures of each other. We are here to bring to
consciousness the beauty and power that are around us and to praise the people
who are here with us. We witness our generation and our times. We watch the
weather. Otherwise, creation would be playing to an empty house.

According to the second law of thermodynamics, things fall apart.
Structures disintegrate. Buckminster Fuller hinted at a reason we are here: By
creating things, by thinking up new combinations, we counteract this flow of
entropy. We make new structures, new wholeness, so the universe comes out
even. A shepherd on a hilltop who looks at a mess of stars and thinks,
‘There's a hunter, a plow, a fish,' is making mental connections that have as
much real force in the universe as the very fires in those stars themselves.

Legendary science writer Stephen Jay Gould:

The human species has inhabited this planet for only 250,000 years or so-
roughly.0015 percent of the history of life, the last inch of the cosmic mile.
The world fared perfectly well without us for all but the last moment of
earthly time–and this fact makes our appearance look more like an accidental
afterthought than the culmination of a prefigured plan.

Moreover, the pathways that have led to our evolution are quirky,
improbable, unrepeatable and utterly unpredictable. Human evolution is not
random; it makes sense and can be explained after the fact. But wind back
life's tape to the dawn of time and let it play again–and you will never get
humans a second time.

We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy
that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth
never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species,
arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to
survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a ‘higher' answer — but none
exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying,
is ultimately liberating and exhilarating. We cannot read the meaning of life
passively in the facts of nature. We must construct these answers ourselves —
from our own wisdom and ethical sense. There is no other way.

Frank Donofrio, a barber:

I have been asking myself why I'm here most of my life. If there's a
purpose I don't care anymore. I'm seventy-four. I'm on my way out. Let the
young people learn the hard way, like I did. No one ever told me anything.

Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke:

A wise man once said that all human activity is a form of play. And the
highest form of play is the search for Truth, Beauty and Love. What more is
needed? Should there be a ‘meaning' as well, that will be a bonus?

If we waste time looking for life's meaning, we may have no time to live -
or to play.

Literary icon John Updike:

Ancient religion and modern science agree: we are here to give praise. Or,
to slightly tip the expression, to pay attention. Without us, the physicists
who have espoused the anthropic principle tell us, the universe would be
unwitnessed, and in a real sense not there at all. It exists, incredibly, for
us. This formulation (knowing what we know of the universe's ghastly extent)
is more incredible, to our sense of things, than the Old Testament hypothesis
of a God willing to suffer, coddle, instruct, and even (in the Book of Job) to
debate with men, in order to realize the meager benefit of worship, of praise
for His Creation. What we beyond doubt do have is our instinctive intellectual
curiosity about the universe from the quasars down to the quarks, our wonder
at existence itself, and an occasional surge of sheer blind gratitude for
being here.

Poet Charles Bukowski:

For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But
for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers
don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We
are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God.

We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state and our
educational system.

We are here to drink beer.

We are here to kill war.

We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death
will tremble to take us.

We are here to read these words from all these wise men and women who will
tell us that we are here for different reasons and the same reason.

This is not philosophy as an academic study as it is taught in college
courses. This is the practical application of philosophy to one's personal
life.

It is based on the proposition that we exist (at least I do), that we will
die (perhaps cease to exist), and that we may be able to develop a set of
beliefs or of purpose which can give some kind of meaning to the period
between birth and death.

To do this one must develop an overview of existence, a way of knowing, and
a purpose.

Existence

We must try to answer the questions?

What is it to exist?

What types of things exist?

What is the physical nature of the universe (space, matter, and energy; entropy and chaos)?

What is the nature of time? Is it real?

What is the nature of dimension (size)?

What is the self and what is its relationship to the not-self? Or, what am I and how am I related to everything else?

What is the nature of death? Does it mean to cease to exist or to change the nature of existence or is it only an illusion?

Knowing

We must try to answer the questions?

What is it to know something?

What is truth?

How can we know what statements are true?

What is the thinking process? How does it work?

What is it to believe something? Can beliefs be said to be valid or invalid? If so, in what way?

We use language, an abstract symbolic code, to express ideas. In what ways does this limit us?

Purpose

We must try to answer the questions?

Is there meaning to existence and, if so, what is it?

How should one live his life? What is it's purpose (if any)?

How significant is the self in terms of the universe and of history?

To what extent do our social relationships define our existence?

Is there right and wrong? How are they to be defined?

What is beauty?

To what extent does one have control over his own life?

Assignments

This is not a test. It is an exercise to help you learn by doing research and
by thinking. Look up internet references and books on philosophy.

Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am!"

Marx said, "Religion is the opium of the masses."

Barry Commoner said, "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

Jefferson said, "All men are created equal."

Jesus said, "The poor are with you always."

If time travel became possible, what if you went back in time and killed your own grandfather?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. - Shakespeare

How does all the above relate to philosophy?

Go to the library or somewhere and get a copy of the Dewey Decimal System
or get a copy of a college's catalog of courses offered. Study it. How does
it relate to this discussion?

If you are a "Star Trek" fan or a "Twilight Zone" fan or a fan of "Amazing
Stories" or a fan of "Law and Order" discuss the plots from at least one of
these shows in relation to this. If not these shows then pick a classic novel
such as "Lord Jim" or "Moby Dick" or "The Scarlet Letter" or choose a poem and
discuss. Be sure to summarize the plot as a part of your discussion.

After you have answered the above three questions pick a clear summer
night when you have a couple of free hours. Read this page and your answers.
Go to some peaceful spot where you can sit quietly and see the stars with as
few distractions as possible and sit and think about what you have read for at
least an hour. Take the papers with you so that you can review, if
necessary. Also take a notepad and pencil.

Write an answer to the first three questions in as little or as much detail as
you think is sufficient. If you have been brain washed by the way
things are done in standard high school and college classes you may think that
this assignment is vague or difficult. I assume that you will not participate
if you are not interested in learning about this subject and that you will
realize that the more you study and think about this assignment the more you
will learn. This does not imply, however, that there is any relationship
between the length of your answers and how much you have learned. Note that
there is no time limit on answering. However, it is a good idea to try to
learn as much as possible before the end of your life.

The star you see in the nighttime sky which is 100 light years
away and, unknown to you, was destroyed 50 years ago.

Empty space

The person you were at age 10

Abraham Lincoln's ax which has had 10 new heads and 12 new handles
since Abraham Lincoln owned it

A black hole which no one can see and which swallows up all
evidence of its existence

A quark

The edge of the universe

Anything beyond the edge of the universe

The beginning of time or the end of time

Anything before the beginning or after the end of time

The Internet

If I cease to exist, will these other things exist or is their existence
dependent on my knowledge of them?

Assignments

This is not a test. It is an exercise to help you learn by doing research and
by thinking. Look up internet references and books on philosophy.
Use the keyword "metaphysics" on Internet search engines like yahoo, etc.

Think about the answers to these questions. Write the answers; at least in
outline form. After reflecting on this write an essay to answer the question,
"What is the nature of existence?"

College of the Mind - Philosophy

Answer the following questions by writing a complete sentence for each answer.
Each sentence must start with either "I know" or "I believe" or "I don't know"
or "I don't believe".

What color is grass?

What is Bugs Bunny's favorite food?

Did a man ever walk on the moon?

Did O. J. Simpson kill anyone?

Is Mel Gibson more handsome than Bob Dole?

I am 5' 11"? Are you taller than me?

Does God exist?

Is the moon made of green cheese?

Exactly what time is it?

Exactly where are you?

Are you good?

When did you stop beating your dog?

Can God do anything?

Can God make a stone so large that he can't roll it?

Assignments

This is not a test. It is an exercise to help you learn by doing research and
by thinking. Look up internet references and books on philosophy.
Use the keywords "epistemology" or "logic" on Internet search engines.

Think about the answers to these questions. If you do not "know" the
answer, is it possible for you to know? How?

Life is like a rock falling
into a pool of water.
For a few seconds,
it makes ripples in the water,
and then the water is the same
as it was before,
but the rock isn't there anymore.
Life is like a good book;
the further you get into it
the more it begins to make sense.
As you ramble on thru life, brother
Whatever be your goal,
Keep your eye upon the doughnut
And not upon the hole.
The bird of time
has but a short way to fly!
and lo,
the bird is on the wing!
Whatever will be,
will be.
The future's not ours,
to see.
We are conscious.
We know we are going to die.
In the meantime we get to experience the universe.
Anne Rice
Life is a series of moments
to live each one is to succeed.
Corita Kent
Go eat your bread in gladness
and drink your wine in joy,
for your action was long ago
approved by God!
Ecclesiastes
When you are up to
your ass in alligators
don't forget to
drain the swamp!
Whatever you do
Do with all your might!
. . . . . . . . . . .
Ecclesiastes
Take time to
smell the roses
along life's way.
I asked for all things
that I might enjoy life.
I was given life
that I might enjoy all things.
Fame cannot tempt the bard
who's famous with his god,
nor laurel him reward
who has his maker's nod.
Thoreau
May you live in interesting times
old chinese blessing
May you live in interesting times
old chinese curse
A bell does not unchime
because you seek
to unring it.
Think with the sage and saint.
Talk with common men.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Theodore Parker
And two men ride of a horse
one must ride behind.
Sitting quietly,
Doing nothing,
Spring comes,
and the grass
grows by itself.
The thief left it behind,
the moon at the window.
When you have eaten your breakfast,
go wash your bowls.
Remember yesterday,
Plan for tomorrow,
Sleep this afternoon.
Snoopy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are
never going to die, because they're never going to be born. The number of
people who could be here in my place outnumber the sand grains of the Sahara.
If you think about all the different ways in which our genes could be
permuted, you and I are quite grotesquely lucky to be here.
Richard Dawkins
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years
before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Eternal Truths
1. This is it.
2. There are no hidden meanings.
3. You can't get there from here, and besides, there's no place else to go.
4. We are all already dying, and we will be dead for a long time.
5. Nothing lasts.
6. There is no way of getting all you want.
7. You can't have anything unless you let go of it.
8. You only get to keep what you give away.
9. There is no particular reason why you lost out on some things.
10. The world is not necessarily just. Being good often
does not pay off, and there is no compensation for misfortune.
11. You have a responsibility to do your best nonetheless.
12. It is a random universe to which we bring order.
13. You don't really control anything.
14. You can't make anybody love you.
15. No one is any stronger or weaker than anyone else.
16. There are no great men or women. If you have
a hero, look again: You have diminished yourself in some way.
17. Everyone lies, cheats, pretends (yes, you too, and most certainly myself).
18. Progress is an illusion.
19. Evil can be displaced but never eradicated, as
all solutions breed new problems.
20. Yet it is necessary to keep on struggling toward solution.
21. Each of us is ultimately alone.
22. We must live within the ambiguity of partial
freedom, partial power, and partial knowledge,
and all important decisions are made on the
basis of insufficient information.
23. But we are responsible for everything we do,
for no excuses will be accepted; you can run but you cannot hide.
24. All the significant battles are waged within the self.
25. You are free to do as you like. You need only face the consequences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do It Anyway
People are often unreasonable,
Illogical, and self-centered...
Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind,
People may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives...
Be kind anyway.
If you are successful,
You will win some false friends and some true enemies...
Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank,
People may cheat you...
Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building,
Someone could destroy overnight...
Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness
Someone may be jealous...
Be happy anyway.
The good you do today
People will often forget tomorrow...
Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have.
It may never be enough...
Give the world the best you've got anyway.
You see, in the final analysis,
It is between you and God;
It was never between you and them... anyway.
As the world goes, right is only in question
between equals in power, while the strong do
what they can and the weak suffer what they must
- Thucydides, The Peloponesian War, Book V,
section 89
Never have the armies of the North brought
peace, prosperity, or democracy to the peoples
of Asia, Africa, or Latin America. In the
future, as in the past five centuries, they can
only bring to these peoples further servitude,
the exploitation of their labor, the
expropriation of their riches, and the denial of
their rights. It is of the utmost importance
that the progressive forces of the West
understand this. - Samir Amin
Those with power are frequently least aware of-
or least willing to acknowledge-its existence
[and] those with less power are often most aware
of its existence. - Delpit
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep
the populace alarmed by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them
imaginary. - H.L. Mencken
Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired signifies, in the final
sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The
world in arms is not spending money alone. It is
spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius
of its scientists, the hopes of its children...
This is not a way of life at all, in any true
sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is
humanity hanging from a cross of iron. - Former
U.S. President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a
speech on April 16, 1953
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and
file has already earned my contempt. He has been
given a large brain by mistake, since for him
the spinal cord would fully suffice. This
disgrace to civilization should be done away
with at once. Heroism at command, senseless
brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that
goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I
hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war
is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be
part of so base an action! It is my conviction
that killing under the cloak of war is nothing
but an act of murder. - Albert Einstein
We should never forget that everything Adolf
Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything
the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary
was "illegal." - Martin Luther King Jr., Letter
from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people
doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do
evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

"All logical arguments can be defeated by the simple refusal to reason
logically" - Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory

"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that
lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the
grace of tragedy. " - Steven Weinberg

"One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it
impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it
possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this
accomplishment." - Steven Weinberg

"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless"
- Steven Weinberg

"It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of
intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightning and
earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful abilities of living things seemed to
point to a creator who had a special interest in life. Today we understand
most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws.
We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the
consequences of the laws we do know. The human mind remains extraordinarily
difficult to understand, but so is the weather. We can't predict whether it
will rain one month from today, but we do know the rules that govern the rain,
even though we can't always calculate their consequences. I see nothing about
the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the
hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions
of years."
- Steven Weinberg

"Many of the great world religions teach that God demands a particular faith
and form of worship. It should not be surprising that SOME of the people who
take these teachings seriously should sincerely regard these divine commands
as incomparably more important than any merely secular virtues like tolerance
or compassion or reason. Across Asia and Africa the forces of religious
enthusiasm are gathering strength, and reasom and tolerance are not safe even
in the secular states of the West. The historian Huge Trevor-Roper has said
that it was the spread of the spirit of science in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries that finally ended the burning of the witches in Europe.
We may need to rely again on the influence of science to preserve a sane
world.It's not the certainty of the scientific knowledge that fits it for this
role, but its UNCERTAINTY. Seeing scientists change their minds again and
again about the matters that can be studied directly in laboratory
experiments, how can one take seriously the claims of religious traditions or
sacred writings to certain knowledge about matters beyond human experience" -
Steven Weinberg

"I don't need to argue here that the evil in the world proves that the
universe is not designed, but only that there are no signs of benevolence that
might have shown the hand of a designer." - Steven Weinberg

"It does not matter whether you win or lose, what matters is whether I win or
lose!" - Steven Weinberg

Robert A. Heinlein Quotes

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get
used to the idea."

"When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I
tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I
know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from
stupidity."

"Anybody can look at a pretty girl and see a pretty girl. An artist can look
at a pretty girl and see the old woman she will become. A better artist can
look at an old woman and see the pretty girl that she used to be. But a great
artist-a master-and that is what Auguste Rodin was-can look at an old woman,
protray her exactly as she is...and force the viewer to see the pretty girl
she used to be...and more than that, he can make anyone with the sensitivity
of an armadillo, or even you, see that this lovely young girl is still alive,
not old and ugly at all, but simply prisoned inside her ruined body. He can
make you feel the quiet, endless tragedy that there was never a girl born who
ever grew older than eighteen in her heart...no matter what the merciless
hours have done to her. Look at her, Ben. Growing old doesn't matter to you
and me; we were never meant to be admired-but it does to them."

"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find
easier ways to do something."

"Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often
mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater
the jealousy - in fact, they are almost incompatible; one emotion hardly
leaves room for the other."

"Don't handicap your children by making their lives easy."

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and besides it annoys
the pig."

"Do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they are utterly
different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfill obligations you have
assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of
patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the
reward is self-respect. But there is no reward at all for doing what other
people expect of you, and to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It
is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants "just a
few minutes of your time, please—this won't take long." Time is your total
capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself
to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to
the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time—and
squawk for more! So learn to say No—and to be rude about it when necessary.
Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own
work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble
away your life and leave none of it for you. (This rule does not mean that you
must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be
yours. Don't do it because it is "expected" of you.)"

"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."

"Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's
beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning
them at birth."

"Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and
censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say
to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not know," the end
result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty
little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this
fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind
is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can't conquer
a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

"May you live as long as you wish and love as long as you live."

"Being right too soon is socially unacceptable."

"Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have
invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what
they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand
special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely
for equality. For women, "equality" is a disaster."

"Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it
acquires the political power to do so."

"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may
offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate —
and quickly."

"The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to
democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies
throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body' democracy in
which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal
feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-
restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-
restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that
each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety
and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-
interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and
Circuses.'

'Bread and Circuses' is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which
there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state
extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day
marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that
they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the
productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so,
until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state
succumbs to an invader & the barbarians enter Rome."

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best, he is a
tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear his shoes, bathe, and not make
messes in the house."

"Consider the black widow spider. It's a timid little beastie, useful and, for
my taste, the prettiest of the arachnids, with its shiny, patent-leather
finish and its red hourglass trademark. But the poor thing has the fatal
misfortune of possessing enormously too much power for its size. So everybody
kills it on sight."

"Political tags; such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist,
liberal, conservative, and so forth; are never basic criteria. The human race
divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who
have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for
the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons,
suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors
than the other sort."

"At least once every human should have to run for his life, to teach him that
milk does not come from supermarkets, that safety does not come from
policemen, that 'news' is not something that happens to other people. He might
learn how his ancestors lived and that he himself is no different--in the
crunch his life depends on his agility, alertness, and personal
resourcefulness."

"Listen, son. Most women are damn fools and children. But they've got more
range then we've got. The brave ones are braver, the good ones are better
and the vile ones are viler, for that matter. "

"Thinking doesn't pay. Just makes you discontented with what you see around
you."

"If a grasshopper tries to fight a lawnmower, one may admire his courage but
not his judgement."

"Girls are simply wonderful. Just to stand on a corner and watch them going
past is delightful. They don't walk. At least not what we do when we walk. I
don't know how to describe it, but it's much more complex and utterly
delightful. They don't move just their feet; everything moves and in different
directions . . . and all of it graceful."

One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null word.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

An armed society is a polite society.
-Beyond This Horizon

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most
gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

I've never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true
religion by faith—it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
-Jubal Harshaw, Stranger in a Strange Land

History does not record anywhere a religion that has any rational basis.
Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown
without help.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented
nonsense.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it. It keeps him upright.

Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want
merely because you think it would be good for him.
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its
creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it
by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds
of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled
and those who have no such desire.
-still searchin'

If you happen to be one of the fretful minority who can do creative work,
never force an idea; you'll abort it if you do. Be patient and you'll give
birth to it when the time is ripe. Learn to wait.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

The supreme irony of life is that no one gets out of it alive.

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least
a misdemeanor.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love

Learning isn't a means to an end; it's an end in and of itself.
-still searchin'

Brainpower is the scarcest commodity and the only one of real value.
-that also sounds like Lazarus

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a
wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization
is for insects.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love

Courage is the complement of fear. A man who is fearless cannot be courageous.
(He is also a fool.)
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love

"Love" is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential
to your own.
-Jubal Harshaw, Stranger in a Strange Land

First, what is it you want us to pay taxes for? Tell me what I get and perhaps
I'll buy it.
-Manuel O'Kelly, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the
Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the
saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and
becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd
fantasy, withouT a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of
the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

Hang on to life as long as you can and learn as much as you can. I'm
satisfied to be living and enjoying it. Carpe that old Diem! -- It's the only
game in town.
-Lazarus Long, Methuselah's Children

As a child I learnt that a person's religious beliefs are his own private
business - every person has to work out his own salvation - and it was not for
me to question these beliefs. I learned that it is behavior that counts - how
we treat others and the world we live in. But in America this has flipped. Now
many people talk about their beliefs, the one-on-one they have with Christ,
while they indulge in the most hateful and unchristian behavior. Worse, they
think their beliefs call for such behavior. It is time for us to grab this
nettle and challenge religion's hold on so many people.

One of the factors that brought on the Dark Ages was the rise of the Christian
church, the aggressive way it persecuted those who disagreed with even its
most ridiculous notions. I ask if we are on the verge of a new Dark Age?

Despite its ability to blind us emotionally, despite the fact that in most
cases people come to embrace religion through some form of indoctrination,
religion as an artifact of human thought has long outlived its usefulness. We
are no longer tribes squatting in huts teaching our children that the world is
flat and if the weather turns it's because some god is angry about the clothes
we wear. Problem being that today, in place of sticks and rocks we have big,
powerful and easily portable weapons.

Simply stated, any belief system that speaks with assurance about the
hereafter has the potential to place far less value on the here and now. And
thus the corollary -- when death is simply a door translating us from one
existence to another, it loses its sting and finality. We must consider that
those who do not fear death for themselves, and who also revere ancient
scriptures instructing them to mete it out generously to others, may soon have
these weapons in their own hands.

It is even more important and highly effective to point out how faith
continues to divert our society from coming to terms with the objective facts
which define the issues facing us today in favor of consistently relying on
belief. The dangers of this practice in our daily social and political life
are being felt in innumerable ways, and the danger continues to grow.

"In our next presidential election, an actor who reads his Bible would almost
certainly defeat a rocket scientist who does not. Could there be any clearer
indication that we are allowing unreason and otherworldliness to govern our
affairs"

"The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect
to the beliefs of Muslims. Isn't it obvious that Muslims are fooling
themselves? Isn't it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Koran is the
perfect word of the creator of the universe has not read the book critically?
Isn't it obvious that the doctrine of Islam represents a near-perfect barrier
to honest inquiry? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you
view Islam is exactly the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the
way I view all religions."

"When a tsunami killed a few hundred thousand people on the day after
Christmas, 2004, many conservative Christians viewed the cataclysm as evidence
of God's wrath. God was apparently sending another coded message about the
evils of abortion, idolatry, and homosexuality"

"It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly
terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much
of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion - to religious
hatreds, religious wars, religious taboos, and religious diversions of scare
resources - is what makes the honest criticism of religious faith a moral and
intellectual necessity.

"You can do what you want, but you cannot choose what to want."

Chinese Proverbs and other Quotes

"One generation plants the trees, and another gets the shade"

"Make happy those who are near, and those who are far will come"

"To forget one's ancestor's is to be a brook without a source, a tree without
root"

"To talk much and arrive nowhere is the same as climbing a tree to catch a
fish"

"Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened."

"There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the
same"

"Kissing is like drinking salted water: you drink and your thirst increases"

"The palest ink is better than the sharpest memory"

"I dreamed a thousand new paths. . . I woke and walked my old one."

"Do not anxiously hope for that which is not yet come; do not vainly regret
what is already past"

"Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up."

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names"

"Men in the game are blind to what men looking on see clearly"

"It is later than you think."

"The wise adapt themselves to circumstances, as water moulds itself to the
pitcher"

"It is the beautiful bird which gets caged"

"Men trip not on mountains, they trip on molehills"

"A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows public opinion"

You've got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.

If you love me, give me wings
Don't be afraid if I fly
A bird in a cage will forget how to sing
If you love me, give me wings

"Only as high as I reach can I grow, only as far as I seek can I go, only as
deep as I look can I see, only as much as I dream can I be."

"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and
those who matter don't mind."

"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what
you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."

The most basic questions are:
What is our life? Who are we?
What is the nature of our world?

My answer is:

We are organic beings which, through the providence of an infinite universe in
which islands of order occasionally emerge from the chaos of continual
creation and destruction, have evolved to a point of consciousness. This
means that we have a perception of ourselves and a universe around us. Since
this is what we perceive the question of its reality is a question with no
meaning. Our purpose is to be aware of our own consciousness which is defined
as an existence which can appreciate the universe. We should celebrate the
fact that we exist as a part of the universe.

Our existence is expressed in a number of ways:

Physical senses as organic beings - eating and other bodily functions, sex,
reproduction, movement, coordination, synchronicity and ability to create and
maintain structure in the face of increasing entropy.

Mental awareness - knowledge, logic, ability to think and to perceive such
illusions as space and time expressed as memory, and to create and perpetuate
culture and to imagine things unknown.

Ability to experience physical pleasure and to meditate which means to take
pleasure in existence itself and in the concept of beauty.

Connections - familial by DNA with relatives, physical with the rest of the
universe of which we are a part, emotional with other living beings and
spiritual with the essense of being.

We, or at least some of us, have an innate desire to understand all things.

As the consciousness of man has evolved and his brain has developed he has
developed the ability to perceive the world in symbols or abstractions. The
most obvious of these abilities are the development of languages, both spoken
and written, music, art, and mathematics. At this point some also understand
computer languages.

These are all mostly left brain constructs involving logic and order and the
perception of the passage of time. Our, probably, more primitive right brain
abilities involving emotion and feeling are in many ways the opposite of this
although obviously involved in music and art.

There is no question that these left brain abilities are an advancement in our
species in many ways. However, the purpose of this question is to consider
the possibility that an emphasis on such left brain processes as the
development of science may have perhaps diminished some of the right brain
advantages. This is, in some ways, the old art vs. science debate.

However, it is also meant to consider some of the limitations imposed on our
imagination by the use of abstractions. For instance, language has developed
mostly in response to the environment in which we exist and therefore may not
be as useful in imagining and visualizing other possibilities, an example being
quantum mechanics. Of course math is still developing as witness the
invention of calculus by Newton and the more recent discovery of fractal
mathematics and chaos theory. Music, of course, has gone from Mozart and
Beethoven to the Beatles and Elvis and beyond.

In considering this question it may be useful to consider a few related ideas:

If I ask you, "What does Bugs Bunny eat?", you are likely to answer,
"Carrots." That is, of course, the wrong answer because Bugs Bunny is not a
rabbit. It is a cartoon character drawn on a medium such as paper or
appearing on a video screen. As such, it doesn't eat anything. However, we
tend to internalize and anthromorphize symbols in our culture even to the
extent of giving symbols such as celebrities and holidays a place in our life
as real as Aunt Jane.

The Nuer of Sudan have an elaborate vocabulary to describe cattle. The Nuer
have dozens of names for cattle because of the cattle's particular place in
their history, economy, and environment. Native speakers' vocabularies vary
widely within a language, and are especially dependent on the level of the
speaker's education. A 1995 study estimated the vocabulary size of college-
educated speakers at about 8000 words and that of first-year college students
(high-school educated) at about 5000. The question is does size and type of
vocabulary have a correlation with depth and breadth of imagination? Related
to this, does knowledge of two or more languages give one more ability in
thought and imagination?

Not long ago, a simple brain scanner test appeared to reveal the true story
about one of neurology's greatest puzzles: exactly what is the difference
between the two sides of the human brain?

The people behind the scanner test, clinical neurologists Gereon Fink of the
University of Düsseldorf in Germany and John Marshall from the Radcliffe
Infirmary in Oxford, had been pursuing the idea that the difference between
the two hemispheres lay in their style of working. The left brain, they
reckoned, focused on detail. This would make it the natural home for all those
mental skills that need us to act in a series of discrete steps or fix on a
particular fragment of what we perceive--skills such as recognising a friend's
face in a crowd or "lining up" words to make a sentence.

By contrast, the right brain concentrated on the broad, background picture.
The researchers believed it had a panoramic focus that made it good at seeing
general connections; this hemisphere was best able to represent the relative
position of objects in space and to handle the emotional and metaphorical
aspects of speech. So, in a neat and complementary division of labour, one
side of the brain thought and saw in wide-angle while the other zoomed in on
the detail.

The scanner test seems to confirm the validity of this hypothesis.

It seems to me that the essence of the teachings of Zen Buddhism is that life
must be experienced internally, perhaps by means of right brain processes to
be understood and that it cannot be understood well by abstract thought such
as thinking, talking and writing about it. Thus the key to religious
experience lies in meditation and feelings as opposed to such things as the
study of religious texts.

---------------***********************---------------------

A brain scan may reveal the neural signs of depression, but a Beethoven
symphony reveals what that depression feels like. Both perspectives are
necessary if we are to fully grasp the nature of mind, yet they are rarely
brought together.

Eric Kandel

---------------***********************---------------------

All knowing Oracle;

I said, "I created art on a computer."
She said, "You can't, because art can't exist on a computer. It's only an
electronically stored pattern."

I said, "I met someone in Cyberspace."
She said, "You only typed on a keyboard and no one else was present."

I said, "I made love in a MOO."
She accused me of being unfaithful and says she's leaving.

I'm confused. Please, Oracle, enlighten me.

---------------***********************---------------------

The time has come for me to try to understand the world in which I exist.

As the consciousness of Man has evolved and his brain has developed he has
acquired the ability to perceive the world in terms of symbols or
abstractions. The most obvious of these abilities are the development of
languages, both spoken and written, music, art, and mathematics. This has
also lead to the development of social groups such as the family, tribe, city,
and nation.

Paradoxically Man is separated from the other animals both in his
subsequent separation from reality and in his finer understanding and
appreciation of reality.

This evolution of abstract thought processes can be perceived as his
eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge or as his developing of left
brain or logical and abstract abilities as opposed to right brain or emotional
and feeling and large picture thought processes.

Some ways in which we are thus different than other animals:

Science and Math have developed as ways to understand the world and
to pull aside the curtain and see the gears and levers and machinery which
make the world exist.

Speech, language, written language, painting, photography, audio and video
recordings, and data storage are ways of transmitting our thoughts and
knowledge from one consciousness to another as a substitute for either a lost
or never gained skill at telepathy. In the case of recorded data such as
text, images, video and data, knowledge can be transmitted to another who is
not even in the same time and space as oneself or even from those who once
existed but no longer do.

Man has created a culture composed of memes and a great many artificial
constructs such as imaginary characters in literature, movies, etc. and of
passive rather than active involvement in the world such as sports, movies,
tv, computers, the internet, etc.

Politics and religion developed to organize the social structure. They are
artificial constructs which only exist because a great number of us agree to
believe in and support their existence.

Celebrity means exalting others for real or imaginary abilities and giving
them special or worshipped status for real skills and for no special skills at
all as in the case of kings, popes, and Paris Hilton who are famous or exalted
just for being famous.

The concept of property rights developed extending the concept of a right
to a personal space around oneself (you don't get up in another's face) to
ownership of land and other forms of tangible or intangible things that exist.

Development of the concept of money to represent property leading to an
economic system and consumerism.

The concept of the passing of time and use of clocks and calendars is an
imaginary construct which does not exist in the rest of nature but is a
perception of the second law of thermodynamics.

Real vs. abstract in music, text, economics, computers.

Abstracts, pointers, representations, derivatives. What is real?

Music:

Beethoven sat at a piano and stuck a key. Vibration of a string caused a wave
disturbance in the air which was interpreted by his brain as a sound that he
found pleasing.

He struck more keys until he had a sequence of sounds that he found
pleasing.

He wrote symbols for this sequence of keys on a piece of paper and he called
that sequence represented by those symbols his 5th symphony. This implies
that he had done a similar thing at least 4 times before.

When Beethoven did this he had created a thing, a sequence of key strokes and
the resulting sounds, that had not existed in the world before.

Later Beethoven or someone else could read that paper and reproduce that
sequence of sounds and make a copy of something that at that time had been
done before.

Years later a machine was invented which could record those sounds generated
and play them back and that recording could be copied many times.

So we have Beethoven's original playing, an abstraction on paper of that
symphony, use of that abstraction to make real copies, use of those real
copies to make further abstract copies in the form of electronic symbols on a
record or tape.

By playing that record and use of a microphone attached to a computer I
made a further electronic copy of that abstract copy in the form of bytes of
information stored on a hard disk and I labeled that disk file "Beethovens 5th
Symphony".

Which of these key strokes and abstractions and copies is the real 5th
symphony?

By a similar process I created a number of computer files of music from a
number of composers.

I then created abstract pointers to the locations of these files and
assembled those pointers into a computer file that I called a playlist and
labeled that file "Classical Music".

Now we have an original, copies, abstractions, computer files of actual
music and computer files of pointers to other computer files.

These are all derived from Beethoven's and other composers' original
compositions. They are derivatives.

The real thing that I have is a hard disk which stores sequences of
electronic impressions which I call files. I say that one of these is
Beethoven's 5th symphony. Is it?

Economics:

I had $20,000 so I decided to build a $100,000 house. The bank agreed to
loan me $80,000 in return for a mortgage which is a piece of paper and is a
legal contract. I hired carpenters and bought materials and built a house.
When I had finished, I had a real thing, a house, in which my family and I
could live.

However I did not own my house. I owned 20% of it and the bank owned 80%.
Since I was paying them 5% interest I had to pay them about $429.46 per month
and at the end of the first year I would only owe them $78,820 for my $100,000
house. At the end of 30 years I would own the house and besides paying them
their money back I would end up paying them $74,603 in interest.

Since these interest payments seemed like a good income to a larger bank they
bought my mortage from my local bank. They paid the local bank their $80,000
back plus $7,000 for the mortgage. The larger bank bought a number of these
mortgages from small local banks and put together about two hundred of them
into an investment package and sold that package to a group of investors.

At this point we have a real thing, the house I live in, and an abstraction
which is a mortgage or a piece of paper saying that I owe money for my house.
But we also have an investment package which is derived from that piece of
paper which is another abstraction saying that some stranger who I do not know
and who does not know me owns a part of an investment package which includes
my obligation to pay for my house.

So at this point I know that I own a part of my house but it is a little vague
as to who owns the other part.

Also consider that even the money with which I pay for my mortgage is an
abstraction. It is a piece of paper which represents my real labor or
services I have performed for others.

Computers:

As discussed above I have a computer which contains only stored states of
electronic switches. But these switches form patterns which can represent
pictures and movies and music and text and financial records and games and a
host of other things. Using those symbols and a suitable real mechanical
output device, I can print a report, or play a song, or view or print a
picture or watch a video or learn about a subject new to me and thus enhance
my knowledge or obtain new skills.

I say that using my computer I can go to a place called Facebook or Ebay or
Yahoo or any of millions of other places. What I am actually doing, of
course, is sitting in my chair and using my computer and the internet to
access information stored on other computers located around the world.
However, by this abstract method of communication, I can cause real world
results. If I buy, on Ebay, a cigar case once owned by President Taft then I
will symbolically transfer some of my wealth which is an abstraction earned by
my real labor to another person and he will send me by UPS a real thing, a
wooden box which is called a "cigar case".

Writing:

We have developed languages made up of sounds and words to represent real
world objects and actions and then we developed symbols called alphabets to
represent these sounds and to be combined into words and sentences and books.
So we can now not only communicate among ourselves even from a distance but,
by means of books and libraries, we can communicate over time to future
generations. No only can we do that but we use our imaginations to invent
stories that never happened which we call fiction.

It can be argued that, while math and science expose the reality that is our
origin, the arts and social, political and economic structure that our more
complex brains have developed create a reality that is our future.

They come in two sexes that complement each other. Males and
females are different physically, reproductively, emotionally
and in talents. Each is incomplete. A complete unit consists
of a compatible male and a compatible female at a minimum,
although it may consist of a small group of compatible males and
females. Maybe children are also needed for a feeling of
wholeness?

People are different, but that difference enriches all humankind
and difference should be celebrated and accepted, never denied
or minimized. It should never be believed that different means
inferior. This difference refers particularly to sex and race,
but also to all other attributes such as proficiencies in
various talents, philosophy, culture, political system,
religion, economic system, etc.

People have various proficiencies in the following talents among
others:

Language

Logic

Music

Bodily Movement

Spatial Awareness

Interpersonal relationships

Intrapersonal Awareness and knowledge

Most important attributes include:

Humility

Tolerance

Respect for others

Respect for self

Motivation

Philosophy

Three Axioms

We alone know the only right way.

Our belief is based on faith and is so self-evident
that to question our belief by use of logic, reason or
open discussion would betray a lack of faith.

To save the world it is necessary that we convert
everyone to believing as we do.

These three axioms are the foundation of the International
Communist Party, of the Ku Klux Klan, and of most
Christian sects particularly evangelicals. They are
the hallmark of a "true believer" in any cause. They lead
to much pain and suffering.
Stratification of society based on arrogance and hubris

Arrogance - an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or
in presumptuous claims or assumptions.

Hubris - overbearing pride.

Most people feel they are superior to some other set of people due to their
station in life.

I have identified several classes of beliefs that lead to this.

Superiority due to wealth and power.

Those who believe they are richer or economically or politically more
powerful than others believe they are superior to those who are poorer or less
powerful.

Intellectual superiority.

Those who know more or think they do believe they are superior to those
who know less.

Religious belief superiority.

Those who belong to a religious group believe that since their beliefs are
true then they are superior to those who believe falsehoods.

Chosen people superiority.

Some believe they are part of a class of people chosen by god. This is
usually based on race or heritage. They are therefore superior to the
unchosen people sometimes referred to as the "mud" people or the "sand" people
or other terms considered derisive.

Celebrity superiority.

Some people believe themselves to be superior and are often believed by
others to be superior people simply because they are more well known than
others. This particularly is the case with those in entertainment and sports
but it may occur in other fields such as politics or religion or business.

Skill superiority.

This is the belief that one is superior to others because one is in the
top of his profession in a particular skill such as dancing, or hitting a
baseball or acting or painting or playing music or inventing or building or
managing or whatever.

So consider a person like Oral Roberts, rich due to his speaking skill,
obviously a part of the chosen people and with the only true religious
beliefs, well known and who must have thought he was intellectually superior
to others. He now sleeps underground with all the millions of his inferior
predecessors.

I am an existentialist on question 1. I believe with the Zen
Buddhists and the existentialists that the purpose of existence
is existence itself and living one's life properly to maximize
its quality.

I believe on question 2 that there is a consciousness in the
universe in which time, matter, energy, and spirit are defined
and held and in which all existence is reflected. I do not
believe in a personalized being watching over the fate of
humans, but only of individual's reflections in a universal
spirit. I believe that, just as electromagnetic energy was
completely unknown to primitive man and now is partially
understood, so can time and spirit be understood to be a part of
existence. They will be found to be related to matter and
energy in a similar way as we now know matter and energy to be
related. We may even find or define other dimensions of
existence for which we do not now even have names. But
remember, as the Zen masters know, that a thing is not
understood through intellectual abstraction but only through
personal experience and spiritual oneness with the universal
consciousness.

In answer to question 3, I believe that people can be defined as
bad or good in terms of whether their life tends to increase the
amount of entropy in the universe or to decrease it. Each
person should strive to minimize the amount of pain, suffering,
and sorrow in the world and to maximize happiness and pleasure
both for themselves and others. Life should be a celebration of
the diversity of experiences of which it is made and should
always be lived in the present not in remembrance of the past or
hope for the future.

There seem to be two purposes for organized religion. One is to give people a
belief system to deny that they live in a capricious world in which bad things
can and sometimes do happen to good people and in which there is no longer a
parent or other higher or superior being to protect them. The other is to
give people, who in some way finangle their way into becoming religious
leaders, power over a mass of people to sway their opinions and to get them to
give power and wealth to these leaders.

True believers are told that they must accept the beliefs of their religion on
faith and that it is a sin to question those beliefs. In general they are
opposed to study or education which might subject religious beliefs or
premises to question including such things as the history of their religion
independent of that history taught by the religion or a comparative study of
various religions. They are often diametrically opposed to the methods of
science.

Homo sapiens is a species of animal. As such it serves two biological
imperatives, to preserve its life as an individual and to reproduce or
preserve its species. It can be argued that there is only one imperative,
that to reproduce, because the imperative to preserve individual life is
necessary to serve the imperative to reproduce. It is proven that the
instinct to reproduce takes precedence because in most cases, where necessary,
parents will sacrifice their own lives to save their young.

In developing society or social groupings which are a higher form of
development or evolution than biological evolution one of the institutions
formed by men is religion. This is an attempt to bring order to a society by
setting a moral compass based on some view of the origin and purpose and
structure of life.

The question arises as to why many religions try to suppress sexual desires and
actions since those very instincts are necessary to the reproduction
imperative. There also seems to be desire to elevate man to something higher
than an animal. It may be that sex is associated with animal nature and
suppressing its expression is thought to be a means of denying man's animal
nature.

So man desires to make himself into something close to a God which is an
invention of his religion. Denying his nature obviously is a destructive
impulse and leads to strife and conflict. It may be that because his social
instincts are evolutionarily very early in development, many of the
institutions man develops including political, economic and religious
institutions are not only imperfect but actually, in ways, detrimental to his
self actualization.

A step toward recognizing this dilemma was in the development of Tantra. Born
in India more than 6,000 years ago, Tantra emerged as a rebellion against
organized religion, which held that sexuality should be rejected in order to
reach enlightenment.

Tantra challenged the acetic beliefs of that time, purporting that sexuality
was a doorway to the divine, and that earthly pleasures, such as eating,
dancing and creative expression were sacred acts.

In the last two hundred years there have been several attempts at a similar
reformation of beliefs in the Christian religion. These have been, for the
most part, unsuccessful. They have ranged from the free love movement
starting in the 1820s to women's rights movements in the early 20th century to
the sexual revolution of the 1960s and later to naturists movements.

It is fairly easy to make the case that religion overall is more destructive
than constructive of human happiness because it is generally more about
control than about freeing of human instincts and impulses.

The young believe that the universe is constant and permanent.
With age comes the wisdom to realize that the only thing which
is unchanging is the fact of change itself. This is mostly a
matter of the perspective imparted by the passage of time. To a
ten year old one year is one tenth of his life and is a long
time. To a seventy year old one year is one seventyth of his
life and is only 1/7 as long as the same year is to the ten year
old. The older person has seen more change in the world, in
what appears to him a shorter time, than the young person can
conceive. A knowledge of history is very important for all to
be aware of this effect.

The capacity of mankind to destroy himself and his environment
increases exponentially each year. Although there are
intelligent and wise people in every society, the majority seem
to be shortsighted, greedy, and unintelligent. For this reason
it seems inevitable that population and environmental
destruction will increase. This will cause a decrease in goods
available and consequently in people's standard of living. The
unequal distribution of wealth then causes envy, hate, racial
animosity, strife, war, etc. People seem unable to be happy and
kind to each other under these conditions.

It is a fallacy to use the word, "destroy", as I did in the
above paragraph. We are all ethnocentric enough to believe that
the best of all possible worlds is the one with which we are
familiar, if only a few small changes could be made. We are all
egocentric enough to believe that we know exactly what small
changes are needed. We also believe that a major change in the
world to one which is unfamiliar to us is the definition of
destruction of the world.

It is important to realize that a major change such as
destruction of the rain forests and the resulting major climatic
and cultural changes would not be a physical destruction of the
earth but only a destruction of the earth and culture as we now
know it. In predicting the future many scenarios are possible,
all different from the world we now know. We tend to feel that
different is worse. However, from the perspective of our
grandchildren, theirs will be the familiar world and ours will be
the strange one. Although they might envy us certain aspects of
our world, they probably would not be comfortable in it as a
whole. Would we actually want to live in ancient Egypt or in
the Old West. Would Wyatt Earp or King Tut be comfortable in
our world? Would they not feel that their world had been
destroyed?

It must be realized that the world we now know will not exist in
the future. There will be a different world, maybe better,
probably worse, certainly better in some respects and worse in
others. That world will be created by the collective decisions
we make, just as our world was created by the actions of our
forefathers.

What if, in the worst case scenario, we manage to destroy
mankind and make homo sapiens an extinct species? Then envision
the earth as either barren and uninhabited, or inhabited by
other species familiar to us now, or inhabited by strange mutant
species. From our standpoint this is a bad ending. However, in
the vast stretches of the cosmos, our species and our Earth were
insignificant from the beginning, only a blip in the universe.
Anyway, what did we expect? Does any species last forever?
Even if it does not become extinct each species will eventually
evolve into another species and thereby cease to exist. We know
it will happen. We just don't want it to happen soon. They say
all Christians want to go to heaven someday, but none want to go
now.

It must also be realized that the fact that we and the world we
now know will not exist in the future does not in any way negate
the fact that we now exist and that our very existence has made
a blip, however small, in the very fabric of the universe. Even
though the, so called, forces of evil may win in the end it is
important that a time exists in which we won. Camelot is gone,
but it still exists in spirit in the fabric of the universe and
there it can never be erased.

There are two points to the above discussion. The first is that
we should try to accept events by keeping them in perspective.
The second is that we should realize that to a large extent the
future is determined by the actions we take now and it is
important for each of us and particularly our leaders to make
decisions with that fact in mind.

Why do people often not take actions that will probably improve their lives or
the lives of those around them?

Examples:

People say:

"I would like to know more about my ancestors." They do not try to find out
more.

"I need to exercise more." They don't.

There is a story on the news about a school system or a police department or a
manufacturing plant that has discovered a different way of doing things that
increases their efficiency or reduces their costs and it is an idea that could
be applied in about any similar business with similar expected results and no
side costs or effects. Other school systems or police departments or
manufacturing plants are uninterested in trying this new method. At a school
board meeting once a parent asked the chairman of the school board why they
didn't try a particular new method that the parent had seen used in a similar
school district on TV the night before. The chairman said, "Well that may
work fine for them but with the people we have here it wouldn't work, so there
is no use in trying it."

I started using computers in 1977 and by 1990 or so it was obvious to me that
the following were now obsolete:

books

photographic film

fax machines

the post office

CDs & DVDs & other media storage media

typewriters

VCRs

many others

but it took years for the rest of the world to realize that.

I installed computer systems for customers and showed them that they could use
those computers for all these things and more. They actually almost always
only used the computer for the one thing that they had bought it for and in
some cases a secondary use and continued doing all other things the same way
they had always done them even though it would have been cheaper and more
efficient to use their computer for those uses too.

Possible reasons:

Apathetic about life - lazy - not willing to make the effort to change.

resistant to change - afraid to change anything because it might be worse or
because many people think things should always be done they way they have been
all their lives and cannot imagine doing things any other way.

Fear - that they might not have the knowledge or skills or intelligence to do
things in a different way or might be embarrassed.

Might require thinking about the world in a different way - might not fit
their world view.

In the words of Robert Heinlein's character, Lazarus Long, in "Time Enough
For Love":

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a
wall, fell a tree, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders,
cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure,
program a computer, plant a crop, cook a tasty meal, survey a land tract,
fight efficiently, die gallantly and sew on a button. Specialization is for
insects."

Many men start out life idealistic with a desire to improve the world but as
they begin to get wealth and power, their vision narrows until all they can
see as a goal is to accumulate more wealth and power.

The best way to enable progress in knowledge in the world is to seek out and
bring together the most brilliant minds, giving them access to the best
library and research facilities with sufficient supporting structure for their
needs and let them pursue creative and intellectual pursuits instead of having
to dig ditches somewhere. Genius thrives when it is rewarded and appreciated.

The first and most important thing a teacher must teach is the importance and
value of the subject he is teaching. It is only when intelligent students
value the subject that learning will take place. Once that is achieved the
smart student will become his own teacher.

In a society which places value on math and science rather than entertainment,
consumption and religious faith, progress in knowledge and technology can
proceed at an astonishing rate.

I think many people in this world do not see the world as a place of natural
law and realize that one can reason out why things are as they are and why
things happen. Instead they see the world as a place of magic black boxes
such that things happen but they have no idea why nor are they curious about
the reasons. For instance, they flip a switch and the light comes on and flip
it again and it goes off. They believe that computers know things and are
capable of doing things but they don't understand how this works.

They expect magic cures from doctors and don't seem to realize that medicine
is a science and a skill but think it is akin to sprinkling on holy water by a
priest. They actually want witch doctors not medical doctors and politicians
who will promise them a free lunch and preachers who will promise them heaven.

I guess these are the same type of people who are true believers as explained
by Eric Hoffer and can be led into being fanatics and even terrorists.

Things that are or should be of actual concern to people in this life:

lack of the necessities of life such as clean air, water, and food.

lack of shelter (housing)

poor health and physical disabilities

disease

natural disasters

economic inequality, slavery, and human or animal oppression, tyranny

crime

war

the condition of the transportation and physical infrastructure of society

the condition of the economic infrastructure and development of society

environmental degradation and destruction and population pressures

loneliness and depression and mental illness - lack of love or social
relationships

ignorance and lack of education and critical thinking

lack of available jobs

the general happiness and cultural vitality of the family and community

history, science, philosophy, knowledge and skills

mental and physical exercise

freedom

Things that are of no consequence but are of concern to many people in this
life:

lives and actions of celebrities in entertainment and sports

holidays

religion

astrology and other fads and pseudosciences

style and fashion

jewelry, makeup, appearance, fine clothing

public opinion

gossip about others

shopping and consumerism - possessions

games and toys

passive sports

passive entertainment

homosexuality and the sexual activities of others.

the race or religion or politics of others

Judge the depth of a person's thinking by the concern he shows for items in
the first category as opposed to those in the second category. Remember, many
people are all hat and no cattle.

The Middle Way

There is a middle way of living life. It is based on the Tantric way and Zen.
The concerns of this way are not the serious or consequential things of the
first way nor are they the trivial or inconsequential things of the third way.
Rather this life is based on maximizing the joys and experiences of the
immediate present with friends and family nearby.

One following the middle way does not worry about the future or live in the
past but rather savors the moment. It is a sensual life.

Some of the activities in which one who follows the middle way may be engaged
could include such things as:

Developing the skills necessary to be proficient and take pride in such
life occupations and creative activities as caring for livestock and growing
crops and fruits and vegetables, beekeeping, photography, building fine
furniture, writing elegant, useful and complex computer programs, wine making
or other skills necessary to living in society.

Walking alone or with significant other(s) in fields and woodlands and
beside streams in spring to observe budding flowers and the rebirth of life,
among vibrant autumn colors or in the brisk air and silence of the snows of
winter; observing wildlife and meditating in the sunshine.

Being close to family and friends enjoying group activities such as sports
and games, food and conversation and travel - seeing new places.

Enjoying sexual closeness with others including the feel of skin rubbing
against skin, sharing breaths, bodily fluids, scents, tastes, penetration and
orgasms. Enjoying the view of naked bodies and the sounds of sexual
stimulation.

Quietly sitting meditating watching a sunrise or sunset or rainstorm and
sipping a cup of tea or coffee with, perhaps, a small cracker or roll.

Reading history or literature or just a good mystery novel.

Studying and learning a new skill or academic subject.

Physical activities and exercises such as running and swimming with the
smell of sweat and the strength of muscles and heavy breathing and a general
overall feeling of health and power.

Mental exercise - puzzles and games.

Family and friends gatherings with drink and food at festivals and
holidays and births, weddings and funerals.

Enjoying the companionship of pets.

Listening to music - classical, jazz, pop, easy listening, country and
others and watching videos, movies and slide shows.

Enjoying the familiar experience of daily household living activities.

The sensual feel of common bodily functions such as eating, drinking,
brushing, sleeping, washing, sweating, peeing, ejaculating and defecating.

What was life like during the pre-agricultural evolution of man?
That was, after all, the vast majority of human history.Homo sapiens has existed for about two or three million years but he
has had an agrarian society for only about the last 10,000 years.
What are the circumstances under which man evolved?

People were mostly active physically, walking, running, moving, not sitting
for long periods of time, but often sleeping.

The village was probably cooperative rather than self serving in sharing
everything including sex so that no one was denied the necessities of life and
the only fear of want occurred when the whole village had a scarcity. It was
a source of shame and even ostracism to be thought one who would not share
with others.

It took a village to raise a child and children often considered all the
adults in the village as their parents and the adults considered all children
their offspring.

It was often a matriarchal society with sex freely available for all.

Some people lived in tropical areas with plentiful food and some lived in
colder areas, perhaps with a scarcity of food requiring a nomadic existence
chasing the food supply. In such cases the group had to provide protection
against hunger and cold.

Here are some correlated milestones in human evolution with a theoretical
implication of cause and effect although it must be recognized that cause and
effect can be confused. If A and B are correlated it may be that A causes B
or that B causes A or that a third factor, C, is the cause of both A and B.

In evolution of humans and bonobos and chimps the female evolved to be
receptive to sex at any time not, as in most mammals, only at the time of
ovulation.

In highly intelligent species like humans, bonobos, chimps, and dolphins sex
is primarily for social rather than procreative purposes. That is why the
frequency of sex to pregnancy is about 1000 to one in humans but only about 10
or 12 to one in gorillas.

This led to more highly developed social structures which led to the
development of language for communication.

There is a correlation between larger brain size, higher intelligence, and the
development of language leading to more ability for abstract thought leading
to the discovery of mathematics.

Man discovered the concept of agriculture which led to the concept of property
ownership and inheritance and to the development of social structures larger
than the village such as towns and cities. It also led to the segregation of
the society by a developing class structure based on wealth and social power.

This also led to the concept of females as exclusive property of one male and
to the idea of repression of female sexuality to try to assure paternity of
offspring so that the male could have some certainty that it was his genetic
offspring inheriting his property. It is interesting that people developed
the idea that repression of human sexuality would separate humans from the
other animals when, in fact, it was the increase in human sexuality that
actually did historically separate them from the other animals.

This created the ideas of individuality and nuclear family units and self
interest rather than the cooperative village commonly sharing all resources.
Chronic food shortages and scarcity-based economies arose with farming.

What people really want in life is higher social status.

People try to acquire wealth and material goods so that they can show off what
they have to others, thus hopefully convincing the others that they have or
deserve higher social status.

There are four ways to get social status:

By having economic power (wealth).

By having physical power (size and strength).

By having special skills (professionals and artisans).

By having a winning personality (leadership).

The reason the goal of the game is to die owning the most property (toys) is
because this will, to some, indicate higher social status.

Before the concept of owning property the option of using wealth to get social
status was not available. So higher social status went to the physically
strongest or to the best hunter or cook or weaver or the person with the most
leadership skills. It was essential for social status for the individual to be
generous in sharing with and caring for others. The selfish need not apply.

As for man being aggressive and warlike, that only happens when there is
something to fight over. That something must be property or food or sex. The
point is that in a foraging pre-agrarian tribe usually consisting of less than
150 individuals where the food gathered is shared with everyone as is sex and
where there is no concept of private ownership of property, there is no
aggressive or warlike behavior simply because there is nothing worth fighting
for. As a matter of fact in small groups where everybody knows your name the
worst fear is to be shamed in front of the group and this would happen in the
case of aggressive, hoarding and selfish behavior as opposed to cooperative
and sharing behavior.

An agricultural society enabled populations to double about every 25 years as
opposed to the doubling every 250,000 years before.

According to Ryan and Jethá, "Basic human reproductive biology in a foraging
context made rapid population growth unlikely, if not impossible. Women
rarely conceive while breastfeeding and without milk from domesticated
animals, hunter-gatherer women typically breastfeed each child for five or six
years. Furthermore, the demands of a mobile hunter-gatherer lifestyle make
carrying more than one small child at a time unreasonable for a mother - even
assuming lots of help from others. Finally, low body-fat levels result in
much later menarche for hunter-gatherer females than for the post-agricultural
sisters. Most foragers don't start ovulating until their late teens,
resulting in a shorter reproductive life."

So a low population of humans had an entire world full of resources available
with little competition and all that was necessary was to travel on foot from
one place to another where resources were more plentiful or there was less
competition, a task that humans had evolved to do well.

By this theory development of horticulture and animal husbandry led to the
change from a simple hunter-gatherer foraging society to the complex life we
know today with its attendant benefits and problems.

Some probable characteristics of pre-agrarian societies included:

No jealousy or divorce.

A community to care for both children and the old and disabled.

Very little infectious disease and almost no heart disease, cancer,
diabetes or other, now common, diseases of age.

No lawyers or economists.

Very little conflict or war.

No McDonalds or Walmart.

No poverty and little hunger.

Little obesity.

No crowding or over population.

No environmental pollution. Clean air and water.

Very little, if any, segregation of society into social classes.

Little mental stress.

No books or movies or recordings.

No greed.

No planes, trains, or automobiles.

No televisions, computers or phones.

No electricity or air conditioning.

Data from age estimates of skeletons from various archaeological sites
representing a variety of time periods in the Mediterranean region indicate
that stature and pelvic inlet depth declined quite a bit with the adoption of
agriculture, and still have not reached paleolithic levels to this day.
Narrower pelvises cause more difficulty in child birth.

It's well accepted in the field of archaeology that the adoption of grains
coincided with a shortening of stature, thinner bones and crooked, cavity
ridden teeth. This fact is so well accepted that these sorts of skeletal
changes are sometimes used as evidence that grains were adopted in a
particular region. There were similar changes in populations as they
transitioned from traditional diets to processed-food diets rich in white
wheat flour, sweets and other processed foods.

The Old Testament mentions the travails of childbirth as one of the curses
inflicted on women after the fall. It seems the bad effects of leaving the
Garden of Eden (hunter gatherer world) and having to “earn thy bread by the
sweat of thy brow” (agriculturalism) was noticed long ago. It is often thought
that the Garden of Eden story was an allegory for the transition from wild man
to civilized man. The ancients knew that this path was cursed.

So man evolved for a couple million years in an environment in which probably
20 or 30 hours per week was devoted to procuring food and firewood. The rest
of the time was spent talking, fucking, eating, sleeping and playing with the
kids. Everyone cooperated so that food, shelter and sex were available to
all. The diet was a great variety of native meats, fish, snails, insects and
plants and plant parts. Mental stress was minimal. There was security
provided by membership in the tribe for the young and old. There may very
well have been a practice of infanticide within the first year and perhaps
euthanasia of the weak or disabled.

Since everyone was free to leave the tribe at any time there was no coercion
other than social stigma and no government, just deferrence to those perceived
as leaders due to their skills or personalities. Tribes were probably between
20 and 150 people in size and may have been nomadic or settled near one area
depending on the availability of food. They, of course, tended to live near
water sources.

In general people then were almost certainly healthier than today and probably
had about the same or maybe a greater life expectancy. It is unclear whether
science would have expanded knowledge of the physical world in such an
environment. It may be that the development of agriculture with the
subsequent growth of population and cities was necessary for the advancement
of knowledge. Of course, the cave paintings discovered worldwide indicate
that there was interest in the arts prior to agriculture.

According to this theory:

Causes of the genetic deterioration of humans since the paleolithic:

insufficient physical activity.

crowding (over population).

mental and emotional stress.

environmental pollution.

a diet less varied and based more on carbohydates than on protein.

obesity.

over work and lack of sufficient sleep.

monogamy with orgasms less than 3 to 5 times per week.

What to do about it:

Feel that you have a purpose in life, a reason to get up in the morning,
and look forward to each day.

Exercise and move around and walk and climb stairs more. Work less and sleep more.

Eat less food of a more varied low carb diet.

Drink lots of water.

Fuck a larger variety of people at least 3 to 5 times per week.
(women trying to get pregnant should fuck at least 5 different men per week, ideally from a pool of eight or more men.)

Live in an uncrowded area with low or no air, soil, and water pollution.

relax & cool it. Maybe some pot?

Don't watch a screen more than two or three hours per day.

Talk and play with others frequently.

General guide to time use:

work 4 hours per day.

sleep ten hours per day.

fuck and talk and play and watch screens 5 hours per day.

exercise one to two hours per day.

eat six small meals or snacks per day for about 3 hours total time.

"How do you approach women?"
"I just say, 'Do you wanna fuck?'"
"Don't you get your face slapped a lot?"
"Sure, but sometimes I get fucked :)"

What is the future of our species?

It will almost certainly become extinct or change in such a way that it would
be unrecognizable to us.

Threats include us doing ourselves in by nuclear war or environmental
destruction such as global warming or global epidemics; or the universe doing
us in by such things as collisions with asteroids or huge sun storms or even
geological upheavals such as volcanoes and earthquakes.

Most of these, however, would be more likely to result in the demise of huge
portions of the population rather than extinction of the species.

Another possibility, of course, is what everyone hopes for, at least
subconsciously. That none of the above will happen and we will simply evolve
to become wise enough to solve all our problems and live long lives of peace
and happiness. That seems unlikely but its possibility gives us hope.

Quotes and ideas from or inspired by the book "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric
Origins of Modern Sexuality" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá.

“Readers acquainted with the recent literature on human sexuality will be
familiar with what we call the standard narrative of human sexual evolution,
hereafter shortened to the standard narrative. It goes something like this:

Boy Meets girl,

Boy and girl assess one and others mate value, from perspectives based
upon their differing reproductive agendas/capacities. He looks for signs of
youth, fertility, health, absence of previous sexual experience and likelihood
of future sexual fidelity. In other words, his assessment is skewed toward
finding a fertile, healthy young mate with many childbearing years ahead and
no current children to drain his resources.

She looks for signs of wealth (or at least prospects of future wealth),
social status, physical health and likelihood that he will stick around to
protect and provide for their children. Her guy must be willing and able to
provide materially for her (especially during pregnancy and breastfeeding) and
their children, known as "male parental investment".

Boy gets girl. Assuming they meet one anothers criteria, they mate,
forming a long term pair bond, "the fundamental condition of the human
species" as famed author Desmond Morris put it. Once the pair bond is formed,
she will be sensitive to indications that he is considering leaving, vigilant
towards signs of infidelity involving intimacy with other women that would
threaten her access to his resources and protection while keeping an eye out
(around ovulation especially) for a quick fling with a man genetically
superior to her husband.

He will be sensitive to signs of her sexual infidelities which would reduce
his all important paternity certainty while taking advantage of short term
sexual opportunities with other women as his sperm are easily produced and
plentiful.

Researchers claim to have confirmed these basic patterns in studies conducted
around the world over several decades. Their results seem to support the
standard narrative of human sexual evolution, which appears to make a lot of
sense, but they don't, and it doesn't.”
Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

For all the oft-repeated claims to the contrary, civilization doesn’t depend
upon the sanctity of any particular form of marriage, but upon honoring the
dignity intrinsic to any mutually respectful, mutually beneficial
relationship.

“And yet, despite repeated assurances that women aren't particularly sexual
creatures, in cultures around the world men have gone to extraordinary lengths
to control female libido: female genital mutilation, head-to-toe chadors,
medieval witch burnings, chastity belts, suffocating corsets, muttered insults
about "insatiable" whores, pathologizing, paternalistic medical diagnoses of
nymphomania or hysteria, the debilitating scorn heaped on any female who
chooses to be generous with her sexuality...all parts of a worldwide campaign
to keep the supposedly low-key female libido under control. Why the
electrified high-security razor-wire fence to contain a kitty-cat?”
Christopher Ryan, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“Marriage," "mating," and "love" are socially constructed phenomena that have
little or no transferable meaning outside any given culture. The examples
we've noted of rampant ritualized group sex, mate-swapping, unrestrained
casual affairs, and socially sanctioned sequential sex were all reported in
cultures that anthropologists insist are monogamous simply because they've
determined that something they call "marriage" takes place there. No wonder so
many insist that marriage, monogamy, and the nuclear family are human
universals. With such all-encompassing interpretations of the concepts, even
the prairie vole, who "sleeps with anyone," would qualify.”
Christopher Ryan, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be
decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy. Got that, fellas?
If you're unhappy at the amount of sexual opportunity in your life, don't
blame the women. Instead, make sure they have equal access to power, wealth
and status. Then watch what happens.”
Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“It is a common mistake to assume that evolution is a process of improvement,
that evolving organisms are progressing toward some final, perfected state.
But they, and we, are not. An evolving society or organism simply adapts over
the generations to changing conditions. While these modifications may be
immediately beneficial, they are not really improvements because external
conditions never stop shifting.”
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“Echoing the Kama Sutra, Sherfey isn't shy about the implications of this
mismatch of orgasmic capacity between human males and females, writing: "The
sexual hunger of the female, and her capacity for copulation completely
exceeds that of any male," and, "To all intents and purposes, the human female
is sexually insatiable...”
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“Though many strive to hide their human libidinousness from themselves and
each other, being a force of nature, it breaks through. Lots of uptight,
proper Americans were scandalized by the way Elvis moved his hips when he sang
"rock and roll." But how many realized what the phrase rock and roll meant?
Cultural historian Michael Ventura, investigating the roots of African-
American music, found that rock 'n' roll was a term that originated in the
juke joints of the South. Long in use by the time Elvis appeared, Ventura
explains the phrase "hadn't meant the name of a music, it meant 'to fuck.'
'Rock,' by itself, has pretty much meant that, in those circles, since the
twenties at least." By the mid-1950s, when the phrase was becoming widely used
in mainstream culture, Ventura says the disc jockeys "either didn't know what
they were saying or were too sly to admit what they knew.”
Christopher Ryan, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“Nor do the females of our closest primate cousins offer much reason to
believe the human female should be sexually reluctant due to purely biological
concerns. Instead, primatologist Meredith Small has noted that female primates
are highly attracted to novelty in mating. Unfamiliar males appear to attract
females more than known males with any other characteristic a male might offer
(high status, large size, coloration, frequent grooming, hairy chest, gold
chains, pinky ring, whatever). Small writes, "The only consistent interest
seen among the general primate population is an interest in novelty and
variety...In fact," she reports, "the search for the unfamiliar is documented
as a female preference more often than is any other characteristic our human
eyes can perceive.”
Christopher Ryan, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“One wonders, in fact, why marriage is a legal issue at all - apart from its
relevance to immigration and property laws. Why would something so integral to
human nature require such vigilant legal protection?”
Christopher Ryan, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“The conditions necessary for devastating epidemics or pandemics just didn't
exist until the agricultural revolution. The claim that modern medicine and
sanitation save us from infectious diseases that ravaged pre-agricultural
people (something we hear often) is like arguing that seat belts and air bags
protect us from car crashes that were fatal to our prehistoric ancestors.”
Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“So is jealousy natural? It depends. Fear is certainly natural, and like any
other kind of insecurity, jealousy is an expression of fear. But whether or
not someone else's sex life provokes fear depends on how sex is defined in a
given society, relationship, and individual's personality.”
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“Our sense of the full range of human nature, like our diet, has been steadily
reduced. No matter how nourishing it might be, anything wild gets pulled -
though as we'll see, some of the weeds growing in us have roots reaching deep
into our shared past. Pull them if you want, but they'll just keep coming back
again and again.”
Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

In "The Moral Animal", Robert Wright laments, "A basic underlying dynamic
between men and women is mutual exploitation. They seem, at times, designed to
make each other miserable."

Don't believe it. We aren't designed to make each other miserable. This view
holds evolution responsible for the mismatch between our evolved
predispositions and the post-agricultural socioeconomic world we find
ourselves in. The assertion that human beings are naturally monogamous is not
just a lie; it's a lie most Western societies insist we keep telling each
other.”
Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“As attentive readers may have noted, the standard narrative of heterosexual
interaction boils down to prostitution: a woman exchanges her sexual services
for access to resources. Maybe mythic resonance explains part of the huge box-
office appeal of a film like Pretty Woman, where Richard Gere's character
trades access to his wealth in exchange for what Julia Roberts's character has
to offer (she plays a hooker with a heart of gold, if you missed it). Please
note that what she's got to offer is limited to the aforementioned heart of
gold, a smile as big as Texas, a pair of long, lovely legs, and the solemn
promise that they'll open only for him from now on. The genius of Pretty Woman
lies in making explicit what's been implicit in hundreds of films and books.
According to this theory, women have evolved to unthinkingly and unashamedly
exchange erotic pleasure for access to a man's wealth, protection, status, and
other treasures likely to benefit her and her children.”
Christopher Ryan, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“Anthropologist Donald Symons is as amazed as we are at frequent attempts to
argue that monogamous gibbons could serve as viable models for human
sexuality, writing, "Talk of why (or whether) humans pair bond like gibbons
strikes me as belonging to the same realm of discourse as talk of why the sea
is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings.”
Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“Rather than a plausible explanation for how we got to be the way we are, the
standard narrative is exposed as contemporary moralistic bias packaged to look
like science and then projected upon the distant screen of prehistory,
rationalizing the present while obscuring the past. Yabba dabba doo.”
Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“When economists base their models on their fantasies of an "economic man"
motivated only by self-interest, they forget community--the all-important web
of meaning we spin around each other--the inescapable context within which
anything truly human has taken place.”
Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“Remember the Tenth Commandment: "Thou shalt not covert thy neighbors house,
thou shalt not covert thy neighbors wife, nor his manservant, nor his
maidservant, nor his ox,nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbor's."
Clearly, the biggest loser (aside from slaves, perhaps) in the agricultural
revolution was the human female, who went from occupying a central respected
role in foraging societies to becoming another possession for a man to earn
and defend, along with his house, slaves, and livestock.”
Cacilda Jethá, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

“No group-living nonhuman primate is monogamous, and adultery has been
documented in every human culture studied- including those in which
fornicators are routinely stoned to death. In light of all of this bloody
retribution, it's hard to see how monogamy comes "naturally" to our species.
Why would so many risk their reputations, families, careers- even presidential
legacies- for something that runs against human nature? Were monogamy an
ancient, evolved trait characteristic of our species, as the standard
narrative insists, these ubiquitous transgressions would be infrequent and
such horrible enforcement unnecessary. No creature needs to be threatened with
death to act in accord with its own nature.”
Christopher Ryan, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

Columbus reported to the Queen when he landed at Hispaniola for the first
time. He wrote it was paradise, the sea was full of fish, the trees full of
fruit, the people were naked and handsome and swam gracefully, and if you
expressed admiration for anything they give it to you freely.
. . .and then he wrote "with a hundred men I could subdue the entire race."
Christopher Ryan

And women are constantly insulted, called sluts and whores if they do enjoy
sex openly. In Spain as well, just about ever swear word you can come up with
involves "puta," whore. What is a whore? A woman who's put in a position where
she'll do anything to feed her children. It's male pressure saying "We control
women's sexuality, never step out of line or we'll bury you up to your head in
the desert and stone you to death," as they're doing in Iran right now. The
pressure on women to not express their sexual autonomy is overwhelming, and
has been for millennia.
Christopher Ryan

What men and males in general don't understand is that saying a society is a
patriarchy doesn't mean you are going to have any power, dude. It means 3 or
4% of the men are going to have all the power, and the rest will be much worse
off than they would be under a female-dominated group.
Christopher Ryan

Monogamy probably promotes more sorts of destructive sexual behavior than it
protects against. With incest there are natural genetic barriers that have
been demonstrated repeatedly, with plenty of research on the subject (the
Westermarck effect). But when you've got someone cut off from healthy
expressions of sexuality, what happens is they often resort to helpless,
disempowered people, who tend to be children. That's what we see in the
Catholic Church, a classic example. I would argue incest and certain kinds of
rape are the same sort of thing.
Christopher Ryan

I was recently reading very compelling research showing that as pornography
becomes free on the internet sexual abuse against women declines. They watch
free porn, and don't need to get into these destructive kind of relationships.
Christopher Ryan

The vast majority of species have sex only to reproduce—a function reflected
in a very low ratio of sex-acts-to-births. Gorillas, for example, have
intercourse at most about a dozen times per birth. And as with good Catholics,
gorilla sex is all business: no oral, anal, manual, or any other kind of non-
reproductive dilly-dallying. The female of most mammals only has sex when she
is ovulating. Otherwise, no go. But the sexuality of human beings—and our
closest primate relations, bonobos and chimps—is utterly different. We and our
chimp and bonobo cousins typically have sex hundreds—if not thousands—of times
per birth, with or without contraception.

It’s the nature of the human beast. For Homo sapiens, sex is primarily about
establishing and maintaining relationships—relationships often characterized
by love, or at least affection. Reproduction is a by-product of human sexual
behavior, not its primary purpose.

Sex of all kinds comes naturally to our species, and most of it has little to
do with reproduction, and a great deal to do with loving one another. Sex and
love hold communities—not just families—together. And in the end, it is our
communities, as much as our families, we ask to raise our children, protect us
from disaster, and offer us some measure of comfort in our final days.

Nothing is erotic that isn't also, with the wrong person, revolting, which is
precisely what makes erotic moments so intense: At the precise juncture where
disgust could be at its height, we find only welcome and permission. Think of
two tongues exploring the deeply private realm of the mouth—that dark, moist
cavity that no one but our dentist usually enters. The privileged nature of
the union between two people is sealed by an act that, with someone else,
would horrify them both.

As a society, we have little awareness of the pain we inflict on our
adolescents who are biologically at their most sexual, but operate in a social
context of denial and shame. None of this is unconnected to the facts that
adolescent boys are, by far, the group most likely to commit acts of violence
against themselves and others.

It seems that the original modern American swingers were crew-cut World War II
air force pilots and their wives. Like elite warriors everywhere, these “top
guns” often developed strong bonds with one another, perhaps because they
suffered the highest casualty rate of any branch of the military. According to
journalist Terry Gould, “key parties,” like those later dramatized in the 1997
film The Ice Storm, originated on these military bases in the 1940s, where
elite pilots and their wives intermingled sexually with one another before the
men flew off toward Japanese antiaircraft fire.

Gould, author of The Lifestyle, a cultural history of the swinging movement in
the United States, interviewed two researchers who’d written about this Air
Force ritual. Joan and Dwight Dixon explained to Gould that these warriors and
their wives “shared each other as a kind of tribal bonding ritual, with a
tacit understanding that the two thirds of husbands who survived would look
after the widows.” The practice continued after the war ended and by the late
1940s, “military installations from Maine to Texas and California to
Washington had thriving swing clubs,” writes Gould. By the end of the Korean
War, in 1953, the clubs “had spread from the air bases to the surrounding
suburbs among straight, white-collar professionals.”

What would happen to the standard of medical care if every surgeon caught
having an affair were fired and barred from practicing medicine? How would
flight safety be affected if the sexual lives of pilots received the same
level of scrutiny and judgment as politicians'? Who would be left on court if
the NBA enforced the same zero-tolerance sexual code we apply to our political
leaders?

How many cases of red-faced homophobes must be exposed as closeted self-hating
homosexuals before advocating anti-gay legislation raises too many eyebrows to
be worth the risk? How many outspoken defenders of “traditional marriage”
(whatever that is) must be exposed as adulterers before voters just roll their
eyes at those two words?

Humans evolved over a period of less than two million years of the
approximately 3.5 billion years of life on Earth. They evolved in an
environment that required constant activity both to escape from predators and
to catch and gather food. Especially after the agricultural revolution about
10,000 years ago, time for leisure, philosophy and education was almost non-
existent. This environment required that many waking hours were often devoted
to growing and obtaining food for the next meal.

Now people live in the so called "civilized" world. This means that man has
been able to separate and insulate himself from his natural environment.
"Modern man" is not constantly in fear of starving, freezing, burning, being
eaten or dying from infection or disease. Life spans have increased greatly
since the time of our neolithic ancestors. It is possible for man to
spend the first score of his years learning his culture, spend the next two
score years making a family and a living by working only about forty hours of
the 168 hour week and spend the last score of his years in leisure and
retirement. This is a vastly different world than that of his forebears.
Many, I am afraid, have more time than they have the imagination to use. So
they end up as couch potatoes sitting and watching TV or talking to one
another electronically without person to person interaction and without any
physical activity other than getting up to get more junk food and going to the
bathroom.

When I was a boy I was interested in the outdoors, science, cowboys, indians,
and cars. I had to work on the farm two or three days a week, usually 4 to 8
hours a day, in the summertime. I did chores including carrying in firewood
each night, milking the cows night and morning, and before we got running
water, I carried buckets of water from the spring. Going to town usually
happened on Saturday unless my dad broke a part on a piece of farm equipment
during the week and had to go to town to get the part. We went to the city, a
three hour drive away, usually about twice a year, and visited my grandmother
in another state once a year. I walked to a one room grade school every day. I
lived close enough that I could walk home for lunch. Men were macho in those
days. We lived on a diet of garden vegetables, soup beans, milk, corn bread,
pork, chicken and beef. We did not have much at all in the way of prepared
foods. Candy and soft drinks were a rare treat. I spent much of my time in
the outdoors both doing farm work and wandering in the mountains. I was
curious about the world around me and loved to learn science, math, and
history and to read literature. I was taught as a child that a man should be
able to survive in the wilderness without any of the trappings of modern
civilization, if need be. So I spent a lot of time learning survival skills
such as fire building, stealth, observation of one's surroundings, cooking,
sewing, archery, marksmanship, orientation and other such skills.

Now the world is different. Children are apprehensive about the outdoors. They
look on it as a fearful place of dirt, bugs, heat, sweat, cold, etc. They
think of science and math as difficult, unknown, and uninteresting subjects.
They think of history as dull. While I was fascinated by electronic gadgets
and machines and spent hours finding out how and why they worked, children now
open the box of a new appliance or toy, expect to use it immediately without
ever reading the manual, and are completely uninterested in why it works, so
long as it does. They live in a world of going somewhere daily, TV, Computers,
phones, DVRs, and Shopping Malls. Spending an hour mowing the lawn is
considered a hard day's work. They don't know the speed of light, the Capital
of Norway, or the ethnic race of Genghis Khan. They know how to press the
shutter release on a camera, but not how to compose a picture, or arrange the
lighting, or figure the relationship between f stop and shutter speed.

Other than one's own family social interaction was pretty much limited to
church, school and visiting with one another in our homes usually on Sunday
afternoons. We communicated other than that by writing letters which might
take several days before an answer was received. Now there is a compulsion by
both adults and children to be in constant communication at all times. People
actually sleep with their cell phones in today's world. The solitary walks in
the mountains where no other human was seen or heard that I once and still do
enjoy which could sometimes last all day and even include a solitary camping
trip over night, now would be considered a cruel and unbearable punishment.

In my time kids learned about sex from each other and experimented when or
before they married to figure it out. Now kids starting between the ages of
seven and twelve learn a weird view of sex from watching porn on the internet.
People probably always had strange views of sex due to lack of sex education
but now this "porn education" opens a whole new world of strange sexual
expectations.

When I was a boy, if you wanted some new toy, you saved your money and then
ordered it from the Sears Catalog and watched the mail man with great
anticipation each day for the two to three weeks it took to arrive. Now
items are bought on a whim as kids shop in a giant shopping mall. They are
taken home immediately and used or played with for a few hours before the next
purchase, sometimes the next day. In my day things were precious and were
well cared for. Now most things are considered disposable.

In my time people were thin and the relatively rare person who was overweight
was described as "healthy" because it was obvious that they had sufficient
food to eat which was not the case with everyone. People shared sometimes
limited amounts of food. Now it is said that about half the food produced in
our nation is thrown away because, try as we might, we cannot eat it all and
many adults and children get little exercise and are obese.

I feel that if the world is to be inherited by people like this, then it is
truly headed for destruction. But, I think my parents felt the same way about
me, and I suspect that all parents have always felt that way about their
children. I don't think the world my generation has created is such a bad
place although I don't know if my ancestors would agree. But if all the
children of the past have caused the world I now live in, then perhaps there
is hope and maybe my children's world will not be completely hopeless either.

My political philosophy was developed over a number of years of
study of history and current events; of reading Locke, and Adam
Smith, and Karl Marx, and Thomas Jefferson; of the conservatism
of Barry Goldwater and the liberalism of Lyndon Johnson, of the
pragmatism of Richard Nixon, and the moralism of Jimmy Carter.
I have observed the leadership of Winston Churchill, and Anwar
Sadat, and David Ben Gurion, and Mikhail Gorbachev. I have
noted the destruction caused by Adolph Hitler, and Pol Pot, and
the Cultural Revolution of Chairman Mao. I have seen the
economic changes caused purposely by Franklin D. Roosevelt and
blindly by Ronald Reagan.

The basic idea is that none of us is smart enough to tell
another of us what to do. Democracy means the rule of the
majority tempered by respect for the rights of the individual.
Democracy and capitalism are inefficient systems, but they are
the best we have been able to devise. Our collective
intelligence as expressed in a democratic system reduces all our
intelligence to that of the average which is pretty dumb. The
liberal philosophy won't work because it assumes we are smarter
than we are. The conservative philosophy doesn't work because
it doesn't give us credit for ever being able to better our
society by tampering with the system.

The conservative philosophy is to leave the free market system
to fend for itself because we are not smart enough to fine tune
it and that government is best which governs least. I can buy
that. But it assumes that the present system is perfect or at
least the best we can ever have. I can't buy that.

The liberal philosopy is to always implement changes in the
system to make it better. That sounds like a fine idea. The
only problem is that, in practice, it doesn't work because
better in theory isn't always better in practice. The liberals
said that quality of care in nursing homes, in ambulances, and
in child care centers should be better. So they outlawed those
institutions that did not meet certain minimum standards. The
short term effect was that many nursing homes, ambulance
services, and child care centers went out of business and
millions of people had to do without these essential services.
The long term effect was that quality improved but many people
could no longer afford the services. If we raise taxes and let
the government pay for those services, then people will have
less money to buy food and clothing. Conservative pragmatism
works but without liberal idealists there will never be
improvement or progress.

Conservatives tend to preserve things as they are while liberals
tend to change things. Change may make things better or worse.
If we fear making things worse, we will never make the changes
for the better. Is it better to have tried and failed than
never to have tried at all? In theory yes, but in practice?

Conservatives put emphasis on individual rights but not on
common efforts to improve individual lives while liberals
emphasize the quality of individual life at the expense of
individual freedom. Since we know what's best for old Aunt
Jane, let's do it for her regardless of what she wants because
she's too old to know what's best for her. A conservative might
say, "Leave Aunt Jane alone to do what she wants, even if it
kills her."

We are a good people lead by wise leaders and we live in a world where those who are not like us have evil intentions and are out to do us harm and take what we have. So, it behooves us to do them harm and take what they have before they can do the same to us. Do unto others before they do it unto you.

To protect our families, our wealth and our power it is necessary that we follow and have faith in our leaders and believe what they tell us and give them of our wealth and power so that they can protect us. Our leaders are superior people who deserve more wealth and power than those who are inferior followers.

There is a God, in whose image we are made, whom we must fear and obey so that he will protect us from evil. There is a Devil who is the God of our enemies who wish to defeat us and take what we have and enslave us. Those who are not like us are our enemies. Sometimes our enemies join us and pretend to be like us so that they can defeat us from within. So we must always be suspicious of others.

Our goal is to achieve social acceptance and to accumulate wealth and power and to consume as much of the world's resources as possible and to be entertained.

This world view is caused by greed, ego and fear. It is sustained by patriotism and religion.

We are all insignificant organisms who have more in common than we have differences. We exist in a random universe and our goal is to have the happiest possible existence. We are most likely to achieve this goal if we cooperate in gaining knowledge to improve our world and our lot in life and to help others who are less fortunate.

Although some of us may have more abilities than others, we all have an equal right to exist.

We live to obtain knowledge and wisdom and to live a serene peaceful life in harmony with our world and to pass these things on to our progeny.

To which world view do you subscribe?

What are the problems when people with these different world views exist simultaneously in the same world?

A twelve year old girl mentally defective due to being born a
crack baby lives in rags in the city park and defecates in the
bushes. Her cocaine addicted unwed mother makes a meager living
as a prostitute and by begging and petty theft.

Adolph Hitler sees this and orders the girl killed and the
mother focibly sterilized and sent to a labor camp.

Ted Kennedy sees this and raises taxes on Bill Gates to set up a
social agency to hire unemployed minorities to visit the mother
and daughter once a month to give them money and food.

Pat Robertson sees this and clamors for a balanced budget
amendment, lowering Bill Gates taxes, building more prisons for
drug addicts, banning vagrants from cities and hiring more
policemen to patrol city parks. He also asks concerned people
to pray for a better world and if they are bothered by poverty
to give money to his church to be used to build orphanages
outside town.

A social scientist sees this and applies for a grant to do a
statistical analysis to find out how many people live in this
condition and run a correlation analysis between poverty and
crime.

I see this and make a donation to Zero Population Growth to
provide birth control information and services. I also make a
donation to the Nature Conservancy to buy unique natural areas
to protect them from human encroachment. Then I petition school
officals to hire more competent better supervised teachers and
adjust the curriculum to increase emphasis on drug awareness,
family life skills, social studies, and job skills. I suggest
that this can be financed by building one less jet fighter and
raising Bill Gates taxes a little to reduce the federal debt.

What would be the net long term effect of each policy?
Is net long term effect more significant than short term
effects?

There are two kinds of people in this world, those who divide things into two
kinds and those who don't. :)

It seems to me that there is actually a gradient in people from one extreme to
the other in the matter of reliance. At one extreme are those who are
completely self reliant and at the other extreme are those who completely rely
on others. Very few people, if any, are at either extreme but we are all
somewhere between those two extremes.

Those who are completely self reliant are comfortable alone and do not need or
seek the company of others. They are autonomous and think for themselves.
They do not require religion or community or nation or other social groups to
survive. These people are often atheists or agnostics and sometimes
anarchists. They generally believe in individual freedom and may be,
politically, liberals who think government can be a force for good in society
or they may be libertarians who espouse as little government as possible.
They are often tolerant of the rights of others. They may be leaders of or
users of the more reliant types or they may be loners.

Those who are reliant on others live their lives as they are taught by schools
and churches and parents and social groups. They believe about the world what
they are told to believe. They generally believe in a world ruled by a
benevolent but sometimes jealous and cruel god with guardian angels to watch
over them and with the promise of heaven or, perhaps, hell in their future.
They believe they must not only follow the rules and have the beliefs of their
society but must live their lives and even think in conformity to others.
Depending on their peers they may believe the world is a benevolent gentle
place or they may be paranoid and think that nature and others not of their
kind are out to get or harm them and that they must fight as their leaders
command to survive. They are often conservatives who are bigots and fearful
of change or of those not of their kind. They are often suspicious of
education, science, government, churches and media unless they feel these
institutions are controlled by those of their group. For these people
approval by their peers is a necessity of life and they define themselves as
members of their social groups.

What should my grandchildren know that they will probably not be taught
elsewhere?

Patriotism is a form of brain washing as is religion. The purpose of teaching
you these concepts in school and church is to get you to accept the
established order and believe that everything is as it should be. The secret
that must be kept hidden is the extent to which the ruling elite in business
and religion and politics controls wealth and power and by doing so controls
your life.

You will be told that history is the story of what has happened in the past.
That is not strictly true. History is actually the story of what happened in
the past as seen by historians from selected pieces of evidence through the
lens of their culture. It is to reality as your shadow is to you.

You probably will not be told that you are a social animal saddled with
biology and instincts derived from your ancestors in the animal kingdom and
with memes passed to you by your culture. These instincts and memes will
control the way you think and the way you behave. It is only by knowing this
fact and resisting it that you will have any hope of autonomy. Question
everything.

Although you may be able to be happier and live longer by following the rules
of good diet and exercise, your life span and life quality will be largely
determined by your inherited genes over which you have no control.

As you get older your perception of time passes faster. As a result you will
reach milestones in your life much faster than you expect and they will be a
surprise to you. It is true that you should live each day as if it will be
your last because one day it will be.

It is important for you to know that your life is what you are living now. It
is not your past or your future. It is this instant. So remember the past
and plan for the future but do not count on better days then. Today is what
you have so make the most of it. The past is gone from your perspective and
the future may never come. You can, however, be sure only that you exist in
this instant. Enjoy and appreciate it.

As you go through life you will change physically, mentally and socially. The
person you are ten years from now or were ten years ago will not be the same
as the person you are now. You will think differently and have different
goals and a different outlook on life. Don't think that the you that you know
is absolute and unchanging. It ain't so. You will find, for instance, that
your life goals will change so if there are things you really want to do in
life, do them soon because later you may be physically or mentally unable to
do them or they may no longer be important to you.

You do not learn much in school. You will learn mostly by life experience.
Being told something is not the same as experiencing it. However, the things
they teach you in school will give you the background you need to better
understand your life experiences so you will know more as you experience life
because you have the educational background to understand. Otherwise you
very well may misinterpret what happens in life and draw erroneous
conclusions. For this reason you cannot learn the lessons I am trying to
teach here by reading this. You will learn these lessons only by experience.
For instance, if someone tells you what hunger is you will not really know
what it is until and unless you actually experience it. That is why more is
really learned in school in labs than in lectures.

In my experience, kids, when they reach puberty, usually between the ages of
13 and 15, become convinced of their own maturity, intelligence and
invincibility. They actually usually reach maturity ten to twelve years
later. If they have the intellectual ability to learn they become smarter
throughout most of their life but never actually become smart, although they
may become aware of how much they do not know, and throughout their life,
particularly after the age of about 50, they become more and more aware of
their own mortality.

Young adults think they will be the perfect parent and that, because they will
raise their kids better than they were raised, they will have perfect kids and
an ideal family. That belief will last until about one week to six months
after having their first baby. They will be amazed at that time how much
their lives and beliefs will have changed.

Life organisms are beings representing the most complexity developed or
evolved in the universe. That means that the matter in the universe is
arranged in the most complex patterns in living organisms. Organisms
including humans exist due to a hierarchy of increasing complexity.

string

atom

molecule

amino acid

DNA - virus

amoeba

protozoa

lower invertebrates

vertebrates

mammals

homo sapiens

society

Human Characteristics

Bodies

upright, hairless, opposable thumb - can climb trees and walk on the
ground.

Tools & Food

can kill large animals, control of fire, making and use of baskets and pottery.

Large Brains

Social Life

community sharing of food, child raising, building, memes, social networks both local and long distance.

Language & Symbols

painting, writing, speech, history and culture passed between generations.

Humans Change the World

by practicing agriculture and use of natural resources and building towns & cities

What organisms do during their lifetime is to rearrange the material of the
universe to battle entropy and to increase the complexity of the arrangement
of matter. In other words, they move stuff in space and time.

This obviously applies to the truck driver, the fork lift operator and the
airplane pilot. But it also applies to the doctor, the banker, the lawyer and
the indian chief.

Think about it.

By somewhere between 12 and 14 billion years ago measured in the time
perspective of humans on Earth in the present time, (This time perspective is
based on a unit that we perceive as the time required for the Earth to revolve
around our sun, Sol, one time.) the physical universe, as we know it, unfurled
from whatever form preceded it, if any. It consisted of energy which is a
force that tends to create order (good) as opposed to entropy which is an
opposing force which tends to cause disorder (evil). Energy does this by
causing or being blips of imperfection in an otherwise uniform and all
pervading nothingness.

These blips caused pockets of order in a sea of chaos. These pockets of order
appeared as, probably among other things, matter. This matter took the form
of, at first, hydrogen and helium and these elements; by coalescing into gas
clouds and suns and galaxies and galaxy clusters and planets and the other
stuff that we have discovered exists in our known universe; eventually formed
the elements of the periodic table.

About 650 million years ago on the planet that we call Earth the energy force
serendipitously caused a carbon based life form which had the property, using a
zipper like double helix arrangement of four molecules as a template, that it
could reproduce itself. Since energy causes imperfection this reproduction
was not perfect and since imperfect reproduction generally leads to a
dissolution known as death, only those children of the process that were
either near perfect copies or those superior in being adapted to their
environment survived. By this process of dissolution of the vast majority of
mutations and survival of a very small minority, evolution occurred and
organisms, over time, increased greatly in complexity. The rate of evolution
was exponential.

Less than two million years ago this organic evolution produced another
quantum leap in that an organic genus called homo produced a species, Homo
sapiens, which had a large nervous cortex which we call a brain. This
structure was capable of being aware of self and of time and had the ability
to learn and to think abstractly and eventually by use of symbols, to pass
culture or past learning experiences to offspring by means of language and the
written word in a similar way as the organic template was passed genetically.

It must be understood that the conception of the passage of time and symbology
such as language and writing are only possible due to the abstract
consciousness of the human brain and are not an intrinsic part of the physical
universe. The physical universe exists only in the moment and exists in time
as a fourth dimension in the same way it exists in the three dimensions of
space. In other words, time is a meaningless concept outside the human
consciousness.

Symbols such as words and concepts such as the passage of time are only an
approximate way of representing what exists, or the physical universe, in the
mind of man. They have no other reality.

So far the three steps that have occurred have been the physical formation of
the universe, the subsequent development of organic life, and subsequent to
that the development of the human mind and culture and memes and society.
Since this culture includes the ability to change the world by rearranging
matter into new forms more useful to humans and the ability to learn over
generations, it is likely that the next steps that occur will involve genetic
manipulation of genomes and the creation of complex robotics and travel to
places other than Earth by humans unless they cause the destruction of their
own species and this step of culture and society becomes another dead end in
the formation of the universe.

To keep the interest of the human mind and to give life meaning it seems that
one or more of these things are necessary:

Question or mystery - an interest in what's coming next - adventure.

Physical or existential pleasure.

Creation - a project in which the person feels he is creating something or
gaining knowledge. This can include creating and supporting a family.

Competition or games in which the person is trying to overcome or beat a
competitor which can be another person or a force of nature. In many cases
earning a living is a major competition against the forces of nature.

Creation and winning at competition leads to a feeling of self esteem and a
feeling that one has earned the appreciation of others including the resulting
social approval and status.

In writing, to keep the reader interested, always have a question or mystery
pending at the book level and at the chapter level and at the paragraph level.
For instance the book is a murder mystery and the overall question is who done
it. In this chapter we are interviewing a key witness, so the question is
"What did he see?". In this paragraph we have knocked on the door. Who, if
anyone, will open it? What will happen next?

The architecture of the world in which we live - the physical laws of the
universe including man made structures and computer code among other
things.
186,000 mps - Its not just a good idea -- its the law.

The market - rules of economics - example: What is scarce and highly
desired will cost more.

Laws passed by political entities - if we transgress and are caught we
must pay the penalty.

For biological and evolutionary reasons sex and sexual relationships are
a basic need for both men and women often from an early age usually, maybe
always, around the time of reaching puberty and probably, for many, until the
end of life.

In humans, this need is separate and outside the desire to reproduce.
In this sphere we actually have three needs; a need to reproduce, a need for
sexual release, and a need for an emotional bond with others of our species.

Everyone should have an opportunity to obtain sexual fulfillment on a
regular basis. Many do not.

Coercive or forcible sex is wrong as is any other physical compulsion of
another against their will.

The most common and socially acceptable arrangement for sexual
relationships is by pairing, bonding and mating in some more or less permanent
relationship among two, or sometimes more, people with sex occurring between
opposite sexes.

However, other sexual arrangements are possible and often happen
including same sex relationships and temporary or one-nite relationships
sometimes for money and sometimes just friends with benefits.

Sex may be a part of a lifelong emotional commitment which may or may
not be monogamous or exclusive but often this is not the case.

Denial of these principles is not only stupid, but causes much pain and
suffering in the world.

In a decent sensible society memes, mores and, if necessary, laws would
provide a structure to satisfy sexual needs.

In trying to understand the people of this world and the structure of their
society, it may be helpful to think of everyone in terms of their function.
So I would think of the people of the world as belonging to five major types:

The rulers

These are the top 1% of the top 1% of people in terms of the wealth and
power they control. These people rule the world and from their perspective
the rest of the people in the world exist to serve them and to preserve the
status quo so that their position of power is maintained. Since they make the
rules they are in a position to protect their wealth and power in the absence
of major social upheavals. These people are mainly at the top of the
political and financial sectors of the society. Think in terms of
politicians, bankers, captains of large multinational corporations.

The workers

These are the people who work every day to support the infrastructure of
society and who are convinced to be happy with their station in life by the
storytellers. Think of people in the food, transportation, communication,
health care, manufacturing, sales and like fields. Their life interests
revolve around work, family, religion, consumerism, sports, celebrity worship,
gossip and being entertained. They are often lost and left adrift in life if
they are retired and their family has dispersed. They are not independent
thinkers but are dependant for their opinions on their neighbors and coworkers
and on the storytellers. They are probably about 80% of all people. Although
they may not realize it, these people have essentially no hope of becoming
rulers and fear becoming powerless.

The powerless

These are the people without jobs or wealth who are supported by the rest
of the society. They include the homeless, the disabled, the mentally ill,
the addicts, the incarcerated and others of this type. I estimate about 10%
of people. The rulers would like to do away with these people but they cannot
because the workers know they may become a part of this class and these people
have family or social connections to many of the workers.

The thinkers

These are the academics; primarily theoretical scientists and
mathematicians and philosophers and innovators; who create the technology and
infrastructure to increase the power and wealth of society for the rulers.
Think of people who work in colleges and research labs who are interested in
increasing the knowledge and creating the structure of society such as
biologists, physicists, economists, mathematicians, social scientists and
people who think of new ways of doing things. This type, like the rulers, is
a very small segment of society.

The storytellers

These are the people who tell the stories which entertain the masses and
convince them to be happy with their lives. Think of people in the mass
media, education, entertainment, religion and historians. Maybe this sector
is about 10% of the people in the society. These people too, are workers,
whose function is to support the existing structure of the society.

One question always facing men trying to live together in a structured society
is what to do with the misfits who are harming themselves or others,
particularly the criminals and the mentally ill. There is also the problem of
those intellectually or physically unable to contribute to the society
including the mentally feeble, the disabled, and those who are for various
reasons unable to make a living or care for a family properly.

There are basically five solutions:

Kill them.

Imprison them.

Deport them.

Fine them in terms of money, time or restrictions.

Provide care for them.

The first problem is to find these people. This is the function of
the police and the prosecutors. They must identify people in these categories
who are harming others and gather evidence to prove and understand the
situation and decide what is an appropriate response by society. They must
then present this information to a court or other authority whose function is
to approve or disapprove or modify the proposed remedy.

The problem, of course, is to make the response of society appropriate to the
situation.

The simplest solution is to kill or deport the offenders. The problem, of
course, is that to kill is much too extreme for most people as is deportation
in many cases and deportation requires a place to which they can be deported.

Imprisonment requires providing care and this is an expense to the rest of the
society but often it is the best solution to protect society and to discourage
such behavior from others. It also offers the possibility of rehabilitating
offenders.

Minor offenses or financial misdealings can best be dealt with by means of
fines in terms of money or restrictions or services required.

In other cases the only solution for those unable mentally or physically to
care for themselves is to make provisions for society to care for them. This
again is a burden on the rest of the society.

The Enlightenment beginning about the seventeenth century can be seen as the
beginning of an explosion of knowledge which was not accompanied by an equal
explosion of wisdom. As a result the subsequent benefits of the technology
discovered and developed was accompanied by unforeseen consequences which
either created or highlighted problems for mankind's existence in this
world.

The biggest of these are:

Environmental degradation & climate change

The technology of today gives man much opportunity to help himself and his
economy in the short term at the expense of degradation and destruction of the
quality of the environment in which he lives in the long term. His burning of
fossil fuels, for example, and its production of greenhouse gases causes long
term climate change making the Earth less suitable for life as presently
existing. Other environmental problems include widespread deforestation and
destruction of the natural environment due to building of roads and cities and
mining and dumping waste products into the air, soil, and water.

Population explosion and migration

Progress in children's health and decreasing the death rates and
conquering many diseases has resulted in a large increase in the population
and resulting problems in food production, housing, water supplies and
migration as well as other needs of a large and growing populace. The
population of the world has increased from about 11,000 estimated around
70,000 years ago to about four million estimated about 12,000 years ago to 370
million in 1350 to about seven billion estimated today.

Conflicts and War

Conflicts and war have been present throughout history but the technology
to wage war efficiently enough to kill and maim huge masses of people is a
result of modern knowledge with the ultimate, at least so far, being the
development of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. In a species
unable to control conflict development of such weapons creates a situation of
great danger to the entire species.

Education

Lack of education has always been a detriment to humanity but in today's
highly technological world worldwide education of all is of utmost importance.

Health - food, water, disease

Population pressures mean increased need for more efficient production and
distribution of food on a planet with limited resources to produce. Not only
is more clean potable water needed for this population but less is available
due to pollution and destruction of many water supplies by men looking for
short term gain. Although strides have been made and are being made in
conquering disease, unanticipated development of antibiotic resistant strains
of disease organisms as well as widespread worldwide travel raises the
possibility of evolution and rapid dissemination of new lethal diseases. Work
is also proceeding in allaying the effects of deterioration of the body due to
aging and birth defects.

Governance & Corruption

Throughout history governments have worked to the advantage of the rich
and powerful and that history persists today with only some inroads due to
the development of democracy and free speech and mass communication.

Technological progress means large increases in total world wide wealth.
So far, most of this added wealth has accrued to the already wealthy in a much
greater proportion than to the poor or middle classes. World trade suffers
from trade barriers and unfair trade practices among nations. Development of
infrastructure is often planned for the short term and is not always
sustainable. Short term decision making often leads to periods of time or to
nations which are financially unstable.

Happiness

Creating an environment conducive to giving the most people possible the
opportunity to achieve the maximum happiness possible.

Protecting cultural diversity

Advances in transportation and communication have created a tendency for
the homogenization of world cultures. This means that the most widespread or
dominant cultures tend to crowd out and obliterate minority cultures. Many
feel that the loss of such cultures is, overall, a huge loss for all of
mankind.

Natural Disasters

It seems that a part of the price we pay for living on this green earth is
our susceptibility to natural disasters. These include weather related
disasters such as floods, tornados, hurricanes, drought, blizzards,
hailstorms, heat waves and lightning as well as seismic disasters such as
volcanoes, earthquakes, avalanches and landslides and including wildfires and
even the possibility of meteors or solar flares striking the earth.

This applies to such diverse acts as littering, murder, rape, cheating, fraud,
destruction, bullying, assault, pollution and many others.

It is bad (evil?) to harm other people (physically or emotionally or
economically) or their culture or other organisms or the environment or the
universe. (Maybe there are exceptions such as killing for food or in self
defense or defense of others?)

These are the victims. There is no crime without a victim.

If one harms another this usually indicates ignorance or greed, or disrespect
(due to ego), or psychosis; taking pleasure in the power to harm others. This
shows the perpetrator is either too dumb to know that what he does is wrong or
disrespectful of the rights or property of others or mentally unbalanced.

He is usually able to do this due to his physical, economic, legal or
political power or because he is able to do his deed in secret.

I suspect that there is some evil of this nature in all although it is more
dominant or obvious in some than in others.

A tax structure based on calculated citizen
obligations structured to prevent excess accumulations of wealth and power and
to ensure at least a minimum standard of living for every household.

Environmental protection including a carbon emissions
fee and regulation to limit environmental pollution, degradation and
destruction as well as measures to limit population growth.

Government provided health care, education and public
safety with all essential services such as housing, food, water, energy,
finances and communications utilities available from consumer owned
cooperatives as well as private companies.

Government support of transportation, communication,
finance and other economic infrastructure necessary for people and businesses
to thrive.

The conservative view is that the only proper purposes of government are to
support the military, police and courts to ensure each citizen life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness with the minimum amount of taxation necessary to
achieve these ends. Conservatives are opposed to government supporting the
functions of providing health, education and welfare. They generally believe
that government should have no function in protecting the environment or
protecting the populace from natural disasters or providing an economic
infrastructure or in research, development and innovation because all these
functions should be left to the private and religious sectors of society.

Beliefs of conservatives include respect for tradition, support of
republicanism, "the rule of law and the Christian religion", and a defense of
"Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and
totalitarian governments".

Republicanism is the political values system that has been a major part of
American civic thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and
"unalienable" rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign,
rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be
independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.
American republicanism was founded and first practiced by the Founding Fathers
in the 18th century. This system was based on early Roman, Renaissance and
English models and ideas. It formed the basis for the American Revolution and
the consequential Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution
(1787), as well as the Gettysburg Address (1863).

Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts
that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of
voters. Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the "tyranny of the majority" in a
democracy, and advocates of the rights of minorities have warned that the
courts needed to protect those rights by reversing efforts by voters to
terminate the rights of an unpopular minority.

Fiscal conservatives and Libertarians favor small government, low taxes,
limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional
social values as threatened by secularism; they tend to support school prayer
and capital punishment and oppose abortion and the legalization of same-sex
marriage. Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world
and show a strong support for Israel. Paleoconservatives advocate restrictions
on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and stand in opposition to
multiculturalism and tolerance.

William F. Buckley Jr., in the first issue of his magazine National Review in
1955, defined the beliefs of American conservatives:

Among our convictions:

It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its
citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend
to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the
dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this
great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the
libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict
between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with
scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral
order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by
monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but
by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are,
without reservations, on the conservative side.

Russell Kirk developed six "canons" of conservatism, which Gerald J. Russello
described as follows:

A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;

An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;

A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;

A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;

A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and

A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart
from one another" and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious
faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a
space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief."

Here's what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part
of the section on education:

Knowledge-Based Education - We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking
Skills (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs
that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (mastery learning)
which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the
student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and
multicultural education, but supports "school subjects with emphasis on the
Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded."

University of Virginia cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham defines critical
thinking this way: Critical thinking consists of seeing both sides of an
issue, being open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning
dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and
inferring conclusions from available facts, solving problems, and so forth.
Then too, there are specific types of critical thinking that are
characteristic of different subject matter: That's what we mean when we refer
to "thinking like a scientist" or "thinking like a historian."

The platform's position on Sex Education is: We recognize parental
responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents
must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their
consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage.

In a section on school health care the platform says: We urge legislators to prohibit reproductive health care services,
including counseling, referrals, and distribution of condoms and contraception
through public schools.

The platform opposes any government quality control of home schools or other
private schools:Private Education - We believe that parents and legal guardians may choose
to educate their children in private schools to include, but not limited to,
home schools and parochial schools without government interference, through
definition, regulation, accreditation, licensing, or testing.

Anarchist - One who believes that there should be no government having control
over the individual. Everyone should fend for himself and be subject to no
laws.

Libertarian - emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political
freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.
Any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from
the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals

Minarchists propose a state limited in scope to preventing aggression, theft,
breach of contract and fraud as well as foreign aggression.

Libertarian socialists oppose capitalism and private ownership of the means of
production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and
management. They reject the idea of a state enforcing property laws
pertaining to property used in production as opposed to personal property.

Some Libertarians believe that there should be no crime without a victim.

Almost everyone believes that there should be a state to enforce laws against
such things as murder, assault and theft, crimes in which there is a victim.

There is more disagreement as to whether there should be traffic, banking,
health and drug laws, and other laws the purpose of which is simply to
regulate the functioning of society.

There is even more disagreement as to whether the state should be able to
force such things as military service and payment of taxes and purchase of
health insurance.

And even more as to whether the state has a right to levy taxes to be used for
social services to provide for the less fortunate or to educate the public.
This is state forced redistribution of wealth.

Right-libertarianism holds that unappropriated natural resources may be
appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes their labor with
them, or merely claims them – without the consent of others, and with little
or no compensation to the rest of society.

Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources
are initially owned by society in general, which can require those who
appropriate natural resources to compensate the rest of society for the value
of those rights.

Questions that arise from these philosophies would include the question as to
whether the state has a right to regulate traffic by installing traffic lights
and enforcing traffic laws, or regulating drug use or requiring vaccinations
against infectious diseases.

And if the law says that I must stop on a red light and I am driving on a
deserted road in the middle of the night, I stop at a red light and see there
is no traffic in sight and then proceed while the light is still red, am I
subject to a fine for disobeying the law even though doing so could cause no
harm to anyone.

In general religious people are not libertarians but instead believe that a
state should enforce the laws of their religions such as prohibition of
working on Sunday or eating pork or of females displaying their nipples or
males shaving their beards or laws regulating marriage.

Maybe the god-mind can be developed by learning to see the whole world from a
perspective in which one understands all of what is rather than from the very
narrow perspective that is most natural for us.

It is natural for us to believe that we are separate autonomous individuals
who are born, live and die on a flat world of dirt and stone and water and air
and living things.

It is hard for us to believe that we are actually strands of DNA which have
existed for millions of years changing all the while and that we exist on a
large round conglomeration of solid, liquid and gaseous chemicals which is
only one small part of billions of such things adrift in a space and time
approaching infinite in size and composed of a base which makes matter and
energy and unknown other things we call dark energy and dark matter simply
because we have no idea what they are. The being we think we are is also just
a conglomeration of other beings called cells both with our DNA and with other
DNA which can themselves be considered autonomous organisms living in a
symbiotic relationship and which are themselves composed of smaller entities.

It is also difficult for us to realize that we are only small parts of larger
entities both physical such as Gaia and solar systems and galaxies and galaxy
clusters and social entities such as clubs and countries and economic entities
which are evolving by means of memes into even more complexity such as cyborg
collectives.

This is a questionaire designed to get a handle on your overall world view and
personality.

Each item below begins with a statement and you are asked to what extent you
agree with that statement. Use a number to signify your degree of agreement.
Numbers used should range from 1 to 10 with 1 meaning you strongly disagree
with the statement and 10 meaning you strongly agree.

In making a moral decision or judgement I know what is right and
wrong and have no trouble making such decisions as opposed to having trouble
making these decisions because I am unsure if these matters are that clear
cut.

In making life or business decisions I am immediately sure of the
right decision and march confidently forward as opposed to feeling that I
often do not have sufficient information to make the correct decision and
often must do more research or gather more data before feeling confident in
choosing.

I believe that the world I live in was created by a being higher than
myself and I and the world as a whole are being guided toward some ultimate
purpose unknown to me by this higher power as opposed to believing that I am
an insignificant being existing in a world created by random forces according
to natural laws.

I believe that a higher being, in carrying out some ultimate plan for
the world, chooses certain people to be leaders and gives them extraordinary
authority and powers to carry out the will of that higher being thus exalting
them above the ordinary people as opposed to believing that people are all
equally insignificant in the universe and must work together to achieve goals
they set.

I believe that my people and my country are the best in the world and
are superior to most, if not all, others and that the world would be a better
place if everyone followed our example.

I believe that the ultimate destiny of our world is for the best as
opposed to believing that the world we know is destined for a bad sudden or
slow demise at some unknown time in the future.

I believe that the decisions we make both individually and
collectively will greatly influence the future of our world as opposed to
believing that our destiny is predetermined or beyond our control.

I believe that people should make and carry out plans for their
ultimate goals in life as opposed to just letting life happen and going along
for the ride being happy in the present.

I believe that the environment in which we live was created for the
use of mankind as opposed to believing that mankind is just one more
evolutionary experiment by an indifferent universe.

I believe that my life is insignificant as compared to the ultimate
purpose of the universe and that I should sacrifice myself or my happiness or
my family, if necessary, for the overall purposes of my creator or my country
or my leaders.

I believe that I have a soul which is a part of me apart from my
physical body that will exist even past the death and destruction of my
physical body.

I believe that I am imperfect in the eyes of a higher being and thus
should always strive to do as I feel directed by this higher being so that I
can be forgiven for my imperfection.

In cases of deciding what I believe I am greatly influenced by the
people and culture around me as opposed to doing independent research and
deciding for myself what is most likely or best.

I believe that the highest purpose of life is to serve my culture and
my God as opposed to living my life for my own happiness and that of my
family.

I believe that I know or can learn from my neighbors or my religion
all that is really necessary for me to know in life as opposed to always
trying to learn more and believing that most things are unknown.

I believe that sex, other than for the purpose of procreation, is dirty
and a reminder of the imperfection of man as being more like the animals than
his true nature which is to be god like, therefore I feel guilt due to my
animalistic sexual urges.

Women are made to be subservient to men and it is largely due to their
influence that men often have impure thoughts.

I will eat most anything as opposed to those who are finicky eaters and
will not eat meat or will try to eat only organically grown foods.

I am suspicious of the motives and purposes of strangers and those
who are not like myself and my neighbors. I am afraid they might be planning
to try to take what we have.

I believe that it is more important that I work to gain wealth and
power as soon as possible than that I concentrate on enjoying life now.

I am happy to work each day to support my family and enjoy my
possessions and be entertained as opposed to studying and learning throughout
life.

The opinions of my neighbors about me and about the world are very
important to me in forming my own world view.

I am a self made person and have worked hard for what I have and owe
no one for it as opposed to those who think they owe their society or their
government for providing the infrastructure in which they labor.

If any among us should criticize our way of life or question our
beliefs they should be punished or banned and sent to live elsewhere.

My beliefs are so obvious and self-evident that I cannot understand
why anyone would not be able to see the truth of them.

If others are not as successful as I have been it is because they are
not as smart or willing to work as hard as I have and therefore I should not
be expected to help them.

1 would indicate that there is no air to breathe.
10 would indicate that there is sufficient good quality air.
numbers between 1 and 10 would indicate that either the air is
insufficient or of poorer than optimum quality.

do you have clean air to breathe?

do you have clean water to drink?

do you have good and nourishing food to eat?

do you get adequate sleep?

do you feel that you can think clearly?

are you healthy as opposed to sick or handicapped?

are you able to get daily exercise?

do you usually feel energetic as opposed to tired or run down?

do you have an adequate home with things needed for daily living?

do you feel safe in your person, family, community, nation, work and health?

do you have friends, family and companionship (with good sexual relations)?

do you feel free to move and express yourself?

are you living in a good place (environment)?

are you stimulated to live, learn and enjoy life?

do you feel good about yourself and respected by others?

are you confident in yourself and in your future?

are you satisfied with the work you do for a living?

do you feel knowledgeable about living and life and are you learning?

do you have enough time to get done what you want and need to do?

do you help others?

do you have fun in life (and a sense of humor)?

do you see and hear and feel and smell and taste good things in life?

do you feel comfortable in life and in control of your destiny?

do you feel your life has meaning? (What is the purpose of your life?)

have you realized or are you realizing your life goals?

do you have happy memories of the past?

There are 26 questions so the total of your answers should be between
26 and 260.

Characteristics or hierarchy of happiness

time use - life needs - family - work - leisure
good governance
promotion of sustainable development
preservation and promotion of cultural values
ecology & environment
community vitality
cultural vitality
living standards
life satisfaction in all areas of time use
government, social, economic and cultural stability and feelings of safety and security

Form vs. Substance

as applied to:

Computer Use

The Internet

Education

Business

Government

and

Personal Life

During my lifetime of training and experience as an applied scientist and
technician, I have been consistently taught the concept of Management by
Objectives, (MBO). This concept leads one to always approach everything in
life, including life itself, by first, determining objectives, second,
planning methods or processes necessary to efficiently reach those objectives,
and third, implementing the plan. Usually complex plans consist of various
sublevels of sub-objectives, time tables, etc. Plans and objectives are
continually monitored, evaluated, and modified as they are implemented and
circumstances change and additional information becomes available.

For example, in designing my internet site, one of the first things I did was
to write the Preface and the Welcome Page to define the objectives of the
site.

I have learned during the last few years that most people and institutions do
not manage in this way. It could even be said that they do very little
planning or management. This has become one of my pet peeves and this essay
is written to give some examples of this lack of management and its
consequences.

The important points of this essay are these:

Objectives must be properly defined.

Plans for achieving objectives must be detailed.

There must be a mechanism for monitoring the implementation of plans and making appropriate modifications.

Ongoing processes must be eliminated when objectives are achieved. (Don't keep the railroad commission when there are no longer railroads to regulate.)

A recent study says that only 1/3 of doctors have any follow-up mechanism
so that they will know if tests they order are actually done. When I worked
for the Kentucky Division of Forestry we had district meetings twice a
year just before the spring and the fall fire seasons. At these meetings fire
personnel from each of the ten counties in the district were encouraged to
carry out pre fire season activities such as inspecting fire towers and forest
access roads, preparing equipment, and lining up seasonal personnel. I
noticed during fire season that many times seasonal personnel were not
available or equipment did not work or roads were impassable. When I asked
why, the usual answer was that the person responsible had not had the time or
the resources to complete the jobs which should have been done before fire
season. Later when I became Assistant District Forester and was given
responsibility for these district meetings and plans for fire season I changed
the procedure. After we had discussed jobs which needed to be done, we wrote
a schedule on a calendar which gave a specific time to get each job done and
identified personnel and resources to be used on each job and identified who
would be responsible for getting the job done. I kept a copy of the schedule
and each morning on the district wide radio system I would check with
responsible people to see that yesterday's jobs had been completed and to
determine if any problems were anticipated in completing today's jobs. If
there were resource or timing problems or whatever it was my responsiblity to
resolve them and reschedule jobs and resources as needed. Because of this
system fire season preparation improved at least 1000 per cent.

I think of substance as anything which is either an objective or a necessary
or desirable step toward achieving an objective and form as anything which is
superfluous. If my objective is to eat an apple, a sub-objective leading
toward the larger objective of maintaining life, a peeling knife may be
substantive but flourishing the knife above my head before beginning to peel
may be only form meant to draw attention and therefore superfluous. On the
other hand, if one of my objectives is to draw attention to myself, perhaps to
enhance my ego, then the flourish may be substance. The important point is
that one should know what he is doing and why.

I had an uncle who considered himself a good photographer. The main problem
was that he took very few pictures. He spent most of his time reading
photography magazines and buying the latest, best, and most expensive
photography equipment. He seemed to have very little time for or interest in
actually taking pictures. I considered him, not a photographer, but a gadget
freak.

I think of computers as great tools to make life better by helping people to
do a number of chores more efficiently whether these chores are bookkeeping,
communicating, learning, playing, or whatever. I know a lot of people though
who spend a lot of time studying the latest in computer hardware and buying
the best in equipment, etc. They do not actually take time to learn to use
applications though but only to possess them.

I knew an owner of a business who proudly showed me all the various accounting
programs, spreadsheet programs and other programs that he had amassed. He was
very proud of the fact that he had these. He had the latest in computer
hardware sitting on his desk. However, he kept all his books by hand in
ledgers. It seems he had never had time to learn to use all this stuff.

I have met a number of people who set up their own computer system and ended
up with four or five word processors, as many spreadsheet programs, and as
many accounting programs. In some cases the computer system they designed
sat in a corner for years gathering dust because they were too overwhelmed by
all the manuals to try to learn to use all that. In other cases they actually
tried to use all the software and, as a result, neglected their business.

I installed a computerized accounting system for the owner of a small building
supply business a few years ago. He said he needed it to send statements to
his customers monthly. After he had used the system a few months, I asked him
how he liked the system and if it wasn't much faster than his manual
bookkeeping. He said that actually he didn't like the system because it took
too much time putting all the charge tickets into the computer. "But", I
said, "that must be faster than doing the same job manually." "No.", said he,
"Before the computer I just had a barrel behind the counter. When a customer
would charge a sale I would pitch the ticket into the barrel. When a customer
came in to pay his bill, I would just dig through the barrel and find as many
of his charge tickets as I could, add them and charge him that amount. Now I
have to do all this blasted bookkeeping!"

It is important to define your objective properly. For example the
objective of electronic billing computer programs should not be to submit
electronic bills. It should be to collect money. In setting up medical
electronic billing systems to bill Blue Shield, Medicare, and Medicaid for
physicians and pharmacies we found that about 15% of paper and electronic
billings were not being paid. We discovered this because the medical software
I developed had follow up capability so that it was able to alert the
operators about unpaid amounts. I responded to this problem by building all
medical billing software with the capability to automatically rebill all
unpaid bills on a monthly basis after the first 90 days. Since the 15% of
bills that were lost were random, we recovered almost all the amounts that
would have been lost without the automatic rebill capability. As a result of
this and the ability of my software to download and read in remittance advices
electronically my medical software has for several years recovered about
$50,000 extra per year for each of my customers over any other method of
billing including other computer packages which all require the operator to
tell the computer which items to rebill individually.

A financial advisor for a small rural hospital decided that Lotus 123, the
spreadsheet program, was the greatest thing going, so when the hospital had no
computerized accounting system he advised them to set up their entire
accounting, payroll, and accounts receivable system on Lotus 123. You can
make holes with a hammer too, but a drill works much better. When they hired
me I set up custom software designed for their objectives and it worked fine
for years.

People become enamoured with technology and processes and forget objectives.
My sister-in-law works at a mid sized hospital scheduling surgery. The
hospital has computerized much of its operations with varying degrees of
success. Scheduling surgery is now done by means of a calendar type book
designed for this purpose. Her supervisor wants to computerize scheduling of
the surgery even though the schedule book is only used by the people in the
one surgery office. He wants to do this because it is possible, even though a
study found that accessing the scheduling software takes three times as long
as scheduling manually the way it is now being done.
On the other hand, I successfully computerized scheduling of crude oil pick-
ups by an oil purchasing company. In that case though, scheduling was being
done by two different people in separate buildings and it was essential that
they each know at all times what the other had scheduled.

I notice that many people want to have home pages on the Internet, but once
they get them have nothing to put on them other than a list of their favorite
links. As a result a lot of the internet becomes links to links with content
difficult to find. It may be that the information super highway will mostly
consist of a set of overlapping circles going nowhere.

I also notice that many internet pages are covered with color, graphics, etc.
but have little useful content. Many are unusable by people with text only
browsers or are so slow to load that they are worthless to those without high
speed connections. I think that the objective of many webmasters is to show
off all the fancy stuff they can do with HTML but they have no reason for
doing it. Of course, it is true that, in some cases, the graphics are
necessary for the purpose of the page or simply add to text information
otherwise available or are designed in such a way that they do not interfere
with page loading or navigation.

I recently received a message from a person who has a great internet site
dedicated to the dissemination and discussion of ideas. He proudly pointed
out that plans for the new year for the site included adding audio and video.
Now this may be great and very useful for the site but, if so, he didn't say
why. I suspect that the idea was to attract surfers who are more interested
in glitz than in ideas or perhaps just to keep up with the latest technology.
A couple of hours reading "On Walden Pond" might be in order.

The webmaster at a mid-sized university did not take time to learn HTML or
simply did not take time to write it properly. As a result the main home page
at the University would not load on many browsers. It would, however, work on
Netscape because Netscape 1.1 overlooks much improper HTML. (I understand
Netscape 2.0 does not.) I pointed out the problem to him and sent him the
first few lines of his code corrected to proper HTML. He informed me that as
long as the page would load on Netscape it seemed to him immaterial whether
those with other browsers could see his page. This seems to be a rather
common attitude on the Internet. I consider such people arrogant SOBs.
Personally I want everyone who is at all interested to be able to see my pages
regardless of their sex, color, browser, wealth, political party, or religious
persuasion. But I see dissemination of the content of the pages, not their
form, as my primary objective.

I see educational systems in rural Kentucky suffering very much from a lack
of Management by Objectives.
See my Papers on the subject.

Money is fungible. That means interchangeable. That's why it is valuable.
Otherwise, we could barter with corn. I had a farm loan with a federal agency
and was required to report to them when I sold calves. When I did so the
secretary said, "What did you do with the money?" I said, "I deposited it in
the farm bank account." She said, "I have to know what you bought with that
specific money to fill out this report." To me the question is meaningless.
I spent all money in the farm bank account on various farm expenses, but how
can I say how that specific money was used.

When the "Beaver" of "Leave it to Beaver" opened a bank account, he came into
the bank a few days later and wanted to see his money. When he was shown the
amount of cash he had deposited, he claimed that they had stolen his money
because the money he was shown wasn't in the same denominations as that he had
deposited.

These are both examples of confusing form with substance. This confusion can
have more serious consequences. Once the state legislators got an increase in
the sales tax passed by promising that all the additional money raised by the
sales tax would go to education. They anticipated that X dollars would be
raised thus and go to the education budget. Later when passing the general
state budget they cut education by that amount and allocated that money to
roads. They reasoned that since the money would be coming from the sales tax
it was no longer needed in the education budget from the general fund.

President Clinton got 40 million dollars allocated to three impoverished
counties in Kentucky to be used for economic development to try to lift the
area out of poverty. When the state bureaucrats met for the annual allocation
of state economic development funds they reasoned that those three counties no
longer needed any state money since they had gotten the federal money.

Comments Received

Hello

My name is Robyn Howard and I am currently studying Organisational
Behaviour at University. I was researching the topic of MBO programs on the
new and came across your web page. I am having a bit of trouble with an
assignment question and when I see that we could contact you, I wondered as to
weather you could help me understand this a little clearer. My question is as
follows:
" Identify and discuss the critical features of MBO. How could MBO programs
be improved to make them more attractive to most business. Discuss how these
programs can be integrated with other performance improvement schemes."

Now the only trouble I am have with is the last sentence. I know MBO is
linked to the theory of goal-setting, and I have included this in the
assignment, however I think the question is requiring more than this. I have
found from other research that there are other motivational programs like
Employee Recognition Programs, Employee Involvement Programs, Variable Pay
Programs etc, and have been thinking that maybe MBO is integrated with these.
Would you agree? In another part of research I have found something which
says "MBO developed into modern performance management schemes and
performance-related pay", would you agree and do you think this is what the
question is asking for? After all, if these are all tied into MBO programs,
eg more pay for more work, surely workers performance will improve. Have I
looked at this question in the wrong way.

You may not have a clue what I am asking and I am sorry to bother you, but
I don't know who else to contact.

Reply from Roie:

In my opinion, yes, you have looked at the question in the
wrong way.

Management by Objectives is not a motivational program like Employee
Recognition Programs, Employee Involvement Programs, Variable Pay Programs
etc. MBO is a philosophy or an approach to accomplishing something in life.
The motivational programs you mention are tools which may or may not be
effective in achieving an objective. MBO is probably the only logical way to
approach achieving any objective.

The question you asked in itself does not make any sense to me.
"How could MBO be improved to make it attractive to more businesses?"
That's asking how could achieving their objectives be made
more attractive to more businesses. For what are they in
business, if not to achieve their objectives?

MBO means managing in such a way that you always keep your
eye on the goal. Don't get so busy fighting alligators that
you forget that your original goal was to drain the swamp.
Simply explaining that to a businessman should be sufficient
to make it attractive.

It means first stating your goals concisely.

A recent client asked me to help him develop a web page
for a political party. He stated that the other party had
a local web page and that they made a number of political
statements with which his party disagreed. He felt that
his party needed a web page to be able to respond when the
other party made such statements.

I asked him if he really wanted to define the goal of his
web page as responding to statements made by his opponents
or if he didn't want to define his objectives in a more positive
way such as getting a message about the goals of his party
out to as many voters as possible or helping to gain control
of local political offices or, perhaps, changing the public's
political philosophy to more nearly resemble that of his party.

He agreed and said he would think about that and come up with
a better statement of goals for such a web page. I told him
that I could then help him to make a plan to use the web
to achieve his objectives.

He came to me with a plan to fight alligators and I left him
thinking about how to drain the swamp.

All that was necessary to get this man more interested in
managing by objectives was to explain it to him in this way.

"Discuss how these programs can be integrated with other performance
improvement schemes."

MBO is not a performance improvement scheme. It is a
philosophy of how to do things. Performance improvement
schemes are tools used to achieve objectives.
Once an objective has been defined then plans to achieve
that objective should certainly include various performance
improvement schemes. A proper MBO plan would also include
methods to evaluate such performance improvement schemes
and to discontinue or modify them if necessary.

Hope this helps. I'm not at all sure if this is the answer
you need but I am pretty sure that it is the right answer.
I say this because that I think your objective is to come
up with the answer expected by your instructor and, if your
instructor does not understand MBO in the same way that I
do then this answer may not be the one you need.

Hello,

I have several things to address regarding the content on your web page,
but most importantly, I agree! First, the hype without the fight. The
internet is, I think, one of the best inventions ever made, yet at times
it is the biggest waste of time I have ever seen. As a student I spend
hours running around on the web look for information only to find a great
title and no substance. Don't get me wrong there is tons of useful
information, but there is so much dirt covering it up that it often is
lost in the uncovering process.

Second, the concept of managing by objectives. After spending the last
five years in the human service field I also have to agree with your
observations. The problems you discussed are all true, but there are a
few you failed to mention. First, organizations have great mission that
are out of date and no longer represent their current functions, which
means they are not focused. Then when with the new concept of "strategic"
planning organizations struggle to develop a mission that fits what they
are doing today. This is a prime example of setting the carriage in front
of the horse? The focus has to be on what they want to accomplish not
justify what they are doing.

I don't know, I get frustrated with the world today. We are so focused on
the newest and brightest that the purpose and function do not matter. I
appreciate your candidness and encourage you to continue. Thanks

Great website.............Just like the one I'm planning to build.
Any suggestions would be welcome

Reply from Roie:

Stress content tailored to your expected audience. Plan overall
structure, organization, and traffic flow. Don't get hung up
on fancy bells and whistles like frames, java, etc. Use simple
HTML unless something else is absolutely necessary. Remember the
purpose is to supply an atmosphere and information to your
visitors that they can't get or can't get in that way elsewhere.
KISS - Keep it simple, stupid!

Keep backgrounds muted or non-existent. I have actually seen
orange text on a red background. Black on white works best 90%
of the time. Be sure that your pages work with images turned
off or, if not, that there are alternative pages.

Think in terms of what your web visitors might want. For instance,
give them a choice to start background music. Don't force it on
them. For all you know they may be listening to Mozart in the
background while surfing the web. Clicking on your page and having
"Turkey in the Straw" imposed on "Night Music" might not be their
most favorite experience on the net.

Good luck. Have fun.

My name is Yogi, at the moment I study at monash University, I really
intrested with your homepages about management by objective applied to .......
, acctualy I have question for management by objective, I hope you can help
me to undestand about this topic, my question is How about if MBO are NOT
successful, Are there usually several contingency variable responsible?
Would you like to help me to undestand that topic with explain it and give the
original example for that, I really thanx for your help. I really appreciate
whatever you do regarding my request and look forward to hear from you as
soon as possible. Once again thank you very much for your kind attention.

Reply from Roie:

Thank you for your interest. First I should point out that my essay,
"Management by Objectives" is just my own ideas of how I try to achieve
objectives in my life. There is a formal method taught in schools of
business management also called Management by Objectives. I have not been
formally taught this method so I don't know if the methods I have
developed through experience is very similar. My total instruction in
this method was a one day class in a forestry course thirty years ago.

In answer to your question, the essence of MBO is first to realistically
define your objective and then with the help of research or whatever to
devise a plan of steps necessary to achieve your objectives. It is the
nature of our existence that these plans will almost always be made with
incomplete knowledge. In other words, we will not usually have enough
information to be 100% sure that our plans will achieve our objective.
That is the main reason that plans should include provisions for monitoring
the steps as they are implemented and modifying them if necessary.

If there are problems then either one of two things has occurred. Either
our plans were not properly made and must be changed or our objective was
not properly defined or was defined in such a way as to be impossible to
achieve.

In the example I gave about eating an apple, perhaps the knife is too dull
to peel the apple. In that case either add the step, "Sharpen the knife"
to the plans or change the objective to be "Eat an unpeeled apple."
Maybe the objective is impossible because the apple is too green. Then
change the objective either to "Eat a ripe apple" or "Eat a pear."

NASA wanted to put a man on Mars but there was not enough money available,
so they made "Man on Mars" a long term objective and changed the short term
objective to "Put a robot on Mars". They did not just say "Lets put a man in
space and see how far we can afford to send him."

One could say that the Vietnam war was an example of managing with no
objectives or ill defined objectives and the Gulf War was an example of
managing by objectives.

What are your views on the killing of wild animals? Please let me know.

From Roie:

Your question is not specific but very open ended.
You may have had a more specific meaning in mind
but you asked a very general question.

Like many questions, it is not so much the act itself
that determines the answer but the context and the reason.

As for killing wild animals:

For food - I see no problem unless I am willing to become
a vegetarian which I am not.

In self defense such as when attacked by a bear or a
rabid animal, I see no problem.

By accident as when I run over a rabbit on the highway.
It's a regrettable side effect of our society. I see no solution
unless we are willing to stop traveling to protect animals
which I am not.

For sport - seems like a sick way to get your jollies.

Euthansia as when I find a wounded deer in the woods,
I think there is a moral obligation to get the animal out
of its misery if at all possible.

To protect our property such as growing crops, or health
as in the case of rabies or histoplasmosis, it is
sometimes necessary, although regrettable, to kill
the animals.

For animal products such as furs, ivory, etc. I think the
answer depends on how essential to our life is the product.
Yes, I do take the position that the life of myself or my family
takes precedence over the life of an animal. I would not go
so far as to say that any human life is worth more than the
life of any animal though.

As for killing of other animals that are a nuisance such as
insects, spiders, snakes, etc. I would not kill those simply
because I could or because they exist but I would if I perceived
them as a threat. For instance, I kill poisonous snakes if I
find them in the vicinity of my home but not if I come upon them
in the wilderness.

Your question also leaves open the possibility that you may
be questioning killing of wild animals by non humans such as
the killing of a rabbit by a fox. Well, its none of my business
so I am sad for the rabbit but happy for the fox.

From: Greg Michaud

Thanks for your response. Based on what I read on your web site I believed
you to be more or less against the harvesting of wild animals. As for the
reason my question was so open-ended, it was posed in that fashion in
order to get the type response I got from you. And, I was trying not to
give my position on the subject away for fear of not getting as honest an
answer as I got from you. Again, I appreciate it.

As to your responses, mine are the following.

For food - I concur

Self-Defense - I concur

By accident - I concur. I will add this, however; My first thought is not
for the animal as it is for the safety of anyone in the vehicle involved.
My second thought - and this may or may not sound unappealing to you - is
do I have room for that food in my freezer or can it be given to a Hunters
for the Hungry program.

For sport - There are really two issues here. First, by definition, when I
go hunting each fall it is deemed sport hunting. I will not lie to you; I
very much enjoy the hunt. It is not the kill, but the hunt. Oh, it is
true, when I do manage to kill a deer or partridge or whatever it is that
I am hunting for, I am pleased and happy for my good fortune. The second
issue here is that when I go hunting each fall, the "sport hunting" that I
participate in also leads to some of the best table fare I can provide for
myself. (Sure beats beef!) In other words, in the process of "getting my
jollies" as you put it, I am providing quality food for myself.

Euthanasia - I concur. If I saw a hobbled deer during hunting season, I
would do the same. If it were outside of the hunting season I would inform
the Department of Natural Resourses and let them do their job.

To protect property - That depends. If people who decide that they must
build their "dream house" in the middle of the woods and then expect that
the deer and other critters aren't going to bother their plants and
shrubs, I say, "Tough, deal with it!". In the case of farmers loosing
large sums of money due to browsing by deer, bear, geese and others, I
believe those animal numbers must be controlled and the best method for
that is hunting.

Animal products - As for your first sentece I concur. As for your second
sentence all I would say to that is I completely disagree. ANY HUMAN LIFE
IS WORTH MORE THAN ANY ANIMAL LIFE, IN EVERY INSTANCE. That is based in
biblical truth. Now whether or not you believe in God is another subject,
but I do with all my heart and I must stringently disagree with you. That
is not to say, however, that each and every animal doesn't deserve our
respect, because it does. But, not a single one of them is more important
than a single human life.

Killing nuisance animals - although I am very fearful of poisonous snakes,
I concur.

Animals killing other animals - Nature is a wonderous thing.

I will just make this point in general. Human beings are part of nature
and a major part of our nature is that of a predator. We are a part of the
food chain. I believe that, I accept that and I live that out.

Again, thank you for your response and your honesty.

From Roie:

Looks like we have some agreement and some disagreement. I
would like to add a few additional comments for clarification and/or
arguments sake.

I too enjoy the hunt. I have spent many hours tracking deer in the
snow or sitting on a mountain rock watching below for the rare
bobcat or watching squirrels play in the trees. When I was
younger I would sometimes try to learn indian stalking by seeing
how close I could get to a rabbit or a deer before the animal
realized I was around. Not much luck with deer. I did get within
about three feet of a rabbit once before he spooked. Of course the
objective would have been to have tapped him on the shoulder.

You used the word "harvesting". I do concur that managed hunts
are sometimes necessary to reduce populations in wildlife
management and, as I already stated, I see no problem with
hunting for food. It is not the hunt that concerns me. It is the
purpose. I have killed several animals but I never got any feeling of
joy from doing so.

So, you would argue that the life of the guy who just shot a number
of kids in a school camp in LA is worth more than that of a
magnificent bull elk?

From:Greg Michaud

ABSOUTELY, YES! We have no right to play God, in any instance. He gave us
sovreignty over animals, not humans.

Well, that is a very open ended question because the term, "sexual deviancy"
is ill defined. A number of practices could fall under this umbrella. To
answer fully I will expound on those that come to mind realizing that there
may be many other practices which someone might call deviant that I have not
considered. In my opinion the basic principle involved is: "If consenting
adults want to do it and no outside person is harmed, by all means, let them
go to it. If there is not consent, then it is wrong."

Rape

Rape is forcible sex with a non consenting person. It is wrong in the same
way as any physical forcible compulsion of another is wrong. It is legally
and morally wrong as it is a physical attack on another. We are, or should all
be, free individuals in control as much as possible of our own lives. No one
should have the right to force us to do anything against our will. I will
leave for another discussion whether this principle applies to governmental
authorities acting under authority of law.

Statutory Rape

This is sex that is considered rape because one or both of the persons
consenting to sex are considered to be too young to be able to give informed
consent. First of all I see no problem unless one person is an adult and one
person is a child. Even in those cases I would not consider it rape unless
there is a fairly large discrepancy between their ages, say five years or
more.

Sadism

Sadism is sex which includes physical punishment of another. This is
basically rape unless the other gives consent, in which case the other is a
masochist which means one who enjoys receiving punishment. That is another
form of deviancy. If there is no consent this too is a physical attack. If
there is consent my opinion is the same as on any similar question: "If
consenting adults want to do it and no outside person is harmed, by all means,
let them go to it."

Exhibitionism

Exhibitionism is showing genitals or, maybe, breasts in public. I fail to
see any harm in this to any other person. Some might argue that if children
see this they might learn that males and females have different genitals. In
my opinion, if they don't already know this, then it is high time they
learned.

Polygamy

Polygamy is marriage with their consent to more than one person at the
same time, although some consider sequential divorce and remarriage as a form
of polygamy. Bigamy, on the other hand, is marriage to more than one person
at the same time without the knowledge of the other person(s) involved. The
basic principle above means that polygamy is fine and bigamy is wrong because
a marriage is based on mutual trust and bigamy breaks that trust. Polyamory,
on the other hand, is loving more than one person at a time. Seems to me the
world would be a better place if more people practiced that.

Fetishism

Fetishism is sex with inanimate objects. As far as I am concerned if the
objects don't object and are owned by you, go to it. I would not approve of
having sex with someone else's inanimate objects.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality is sex with a person of the same sex as yourself. Primary
principle applies. "If consenting adults want to do it and no outside person
is harmed, by all means, let them go to it."

Adultery

Adultery is sex with someone other than your spouse without the spouse's
permission. Like bigamy, this is wrong because a marriage is based on mutual
trust and adultery breaks that trust.

Masturbation

Masturbation is sex with yourself. Go to it as long as you don't object.

Fornication

Fornication is sex between unmarried people. Primary principle applies.
"If consenting adults want to do it and no outside person is harmed, by all
means, let them go to it."

Incest

Incest is sex between members of the same family usually of a closer
relationship than first cousins. There are a few problems with this providing
both parties consent. The first is pedophilia if one person is a child.
Another is the danger of pregnancy due to the likelihood of deformity of the
offspring due to combining similar DNA. Incest that results in offspring is a
form of close inbreeding (reproduction between two individuals with a common
ancestor). Inbreeding leads to a higher probability of congenital birth
defects because it increases that proportion of zygotes that are homozygous,
in particular for deleterious recessive alleles that produce such
disorders. Because most such alleles are rare in populations, it is
unlikely that two unrelated marriage partners will both be heterozygous
carriers. However, because close relatives share a large fraction of their
alleles, the probability that any such rare deleterious allele present in the
common ancestor will be inherited from both related parents is increased
dramatically with respect to non-inbred couples. Contrary to common belief,
inbreeding does not in itself alter allele frequencies, but rather increases
the relative proportion of homozygotes to heterozygotes. However, because the
increased proportion of deleterious homozygotes exposes the allele to natural
selection, in the long run its frequency decreases more rapidly in inbred
population. In the short term, incestuous reproduction is expected to produce
increases in spontaneous abortions of zygotes, perinatal deaths, and postnatal
offspring with birth defects. HM Slatis showed a significant delay in time
to first pregnancy in first-cousin marriages as compared with unrelated
individuals in the same population. There may also be other deleterious
effects besides those caused by recessive diseases. Thus, similar immune
systems may be more vulnerable to infectious diseases.

Sexual perversions

This is sex in ways considered by some to be abnormal usually, anal or oral
sex. If consenting adults want to do it then let them go to it.

Pedophilia

This is sex with children. See statutory rape above.

Prostitution

This is sex for money. If consenting adults want to do it then let them
go to it.

Bestiality

This is sex with a different species. The morality of this turns, like
pedophila, on the question of consent. If the other species is unable to
provide consent then the act is probably wrong.

Birth control

This is sex performed in such a way as to prevent pregnancy. This is only
wrong if you assume that recreational sex is wrong. That's silly. I guess it
could also be wrong if you assume that the object of life is to make as much
other life as possible. That assumes that quantity of life is more important
than quality of life. From a biological perspective that may make sense but I
am willing to take the position that, as we are so called "higher animals",
development of culture which includes quality of life should take precedence
over biological imperatives.

Abortion

This is terminating a pregnancy. Obviously killing a child is homicide
and is wrong. This turns on the question of the rights of the mother versus
the rights of her unborn child. What seems to me a logical consensus of
opinion is that if the embryo is mature enough to survive outside the womb
without artificial means then abortion is wrong.

Sex Toys

Sex toys are objects used to enhance sexual satisfaction such as
vibrators. If you own them go to it.

Cross Dressing

This is dressing like one of the opposite sex. What could be wrong with
that?

Voyeurism

This is watching others nude or having sexual
relations. If you have to spy on them in a place where they have an
expectation of privacy it's plain wrong because it disrespects their rights as
individuals to have privacy. If they are doing it in a public place then they
are fair game.

Enough of interest to me that I included your page on my surfing page
list of "Top 20 Cool Sites on the Internet".

I think logic makes more sense than labels such as radical or whatever.
However, it is difficult for most of us to be completely logical because, as
you say, everything is influenced by our memes. That means that if you and I
both try to be completely logical we may reach different conclusions and we
may both be completely unable to see the faults in our logic.

You mention "level-headed" folks. I have only begun to realize lately how
few of those there are.

What I am most interested in at the moment is the
concept of "vagueness". Once I started thinking about it, I was
overwhelmed with the seriousness of the issue. (Just like the "social
dilemmas", I think these things up myself, then go looking to see
what might have already been said about it. Sometimes the terminology
I use can be embarassing later on.) The thing seems to be really
profound to me. I summarize:

Essentially all social elements are "matters of degree", from
pornography to poverty. A break point is set and what is above this
dividing line is ok and what is below is bad.

The specific breakpoint is purely arbitrary and no specific point
can be defended logically. For example, whatever poverty point you
set, you really can't say that that person at that level would be in
poverty if you remove one penny!

Therefore, all such social elements are bogus and have no
justification.

I think that "fuzzy logic" may be another view of the same
phenomena.

But the implications are profound. If the difference between hot and
cold, pretty and ugly, large egg and medium egg, right and wrong,
etc. are just arbitrary points on a continuum, and no particular
point can be defended, then such distinctions are meaningless in an
absolute sense. All is relative, as Dr. Einstein is quoted.

And BTW, that is not a minor point. Whether we think absolutely (as
our custodians would like) or relatively makes a big difference in
how we live our lives. I often remind myself to think relatively when
I start to let some little activity of my wife's irritate me. Looked
at absolutely, wasting money on clothing sales at Penneys could be
cause for separation. On the other hand, looking at my wife as a
package -- relative to what else is available to me -- I realize just
how lucky I am!

You wrote:
"Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be prohibitive toward
socially disreputable psychoactive drugs, especially when they are used
by young and hairy persons; so they generally favor criminalizing the
use of marijuana and punishing rather than treating those engaged in the
trade of LSD. At the same time, they are permissive toward
nonpsychoactive drugs that are allegedly unsafe or worthless and thus
favor free trade in saccharin and Laetrile. In these ways, they too
betray their fantasy of the state -- as enforcer of the dominant ethic:
Such a state should punish citizens who deviate from the moral precepts
of the majority and should abstain from meddling with people's
self-care."

Although you are right in regard to the people now calling themselves
conservatives (Republicans) I would argue that the true conservative
philosophy (Barry Goldwater) would be permissive toward all drugs with,
perhaps, a few exceptions primarily because the true conservative philosophy,
once anyway, promoted individual freedom and minimal government regulation.

I suspect this is somewhat your viewpoint. I tend to describe myself as
leaning toward liberal but this is primarily because that conservatives
lately have tended toward pandering to the nutty far right with a social
agenda which advocates government imposition of morality. Although Bill
Clinton is inconsistent and pandering, he doesn't seem to me to be as much
so as those on the other side. I also, probably unlike you, do feel that
there are a number of arenas in which government can and should play a
positive role.

When the conservative viewpoint is argued logically and consistently I find
that I have little argument, but very little is ever argued logically and
consistently.

To: Leon Felkins

You wrote:

"Now Roie, being a farmer, you know dang well that the purpose of life
is to propagate your own kind. All else is wishful thinking, apparently
a burden of humans only."

Many times, as an existentialist, I suspect that reproduction and awareness
of life are the only purposes that are not actually a reflection of human ego.

I can't bring myself to support either major party as it would be like
providing support to one or the other of two thugs who are
quarrelling over how they are going to divide up your loot. I am
probably best described as being libertarian in the sense that I am
for less government (simply go back to the original agreement, the
constitution and to that level established at that time).

As far as are there any areas that government should be in? My
statement here is that at the moment, we don't have any other
solution to the "common goods" problem, human nature being what it
is. People are going to cheat with regard to common goods unless you
convince them that God is watching them or the government is possibly
watching and the consequences are severe. Unfortunately bringing in
the government (or God) creates a whole new set of problems, possibly
as bad or worse than you had before!

In general, I also tend to support the conservative view. The liberal
view implies that we know the answer to the problem and we ought to
just do it. That comes from ignorance. Most likely, the solutions
don't work. Most likely there will be horrid "unanticipated results".
So, conservatism appeals to me because I realize how incapable we are
in solving human problems.

But -- unless restrained -- they will go too far. Unless restrained
they will be arresting us for deviant sexual acts (with our own
wives) and will be marching us to a state church on Sunday morning.

You wrote:
"I suspect it is not worthwhile even trying to discuss philosophy with
about 95% of the people in the world, mebbe 99%."

Agreed. And maybe rightfully so. People are bombarded with a huge
quantity of differing views and they don't have the mental tools to sort it
out. Let me relate an experience I had. A couple of years ago, my
wife and I spent the evening visiting and old couple that live near
by. As so often happens, I got into expressing some of my
philosophical views, which they listened to intently. Later in the
evening, the old man said, "hey, I got to introduce you to a really
smart young man that I think you two would really enjoy talking to.
His interest is astrology and he loves to talk about it!". Oh, well.

From Roie:
Maybe mental tools, maybe people are just different and have different
interests. Maybe lying in the sun sleeping with a full stomach makes a
better philosophical statement than all the words we write.

From Leon:
Hey, that's the subject of my next essay! But there is also a real
problem with people having the mental capability to understand many
of the complex issues of today"s society. We humans, genetically, are
still cavemen.

"Nothing appears more surprising to those who consider human affairs
with a philosophical eye, than the ease with which the many are
governed by the few." (DAVID HUME)

You wrote:
"I think a good case can be made for ignorance or naivete. I plan to write a
paper on that. It is said that a similar situation prevailed in
Germany when Adolf was taking over. Yet, what could any one person
have done? To challenge the system was to die. Might as well ignore
it and enjoy your life."

If you are implying that the world is now in danger from ideas of someone
such as Hitler then you are also implying that this is not always so. That I
disagree with. I do not think that ignorance is now at any higher level than
at most previous times. There is always danger from such people because
there are always a majority who are unable to think for themselves.

I also see your point about any one person but disagree with it. Although
it is true that any one person could not do anything, one person attempting
something might have caused others to follow suit and thereby a cascade effect
which might have toppled Hitler. After all the emperor was seen by everyone
to be naked when the little boy pointed out the fact.

From Leon:
While the possibility of a person making an impact is not absolutely
zero, it is down in the probability levels comparable to "anyone can
become president", or "even you can be a champion football star if
you try hard enough", or etc. These probabilities are so incredibly
small that most rational people regard the chance as zero (at least
subconciously -- they really know they can never be president no
matter how hard they try).

One thing is certainly for sure: an individual by simply voting will
not change anything. The academics have struggled considerably with
this one and no one has really been able to challenge that claim. The
best they can do is say, "well, there is some probability there will
be a tie in a national election". Yes, and we could be blown to bits
by a billion ton meteorite, too!

There are many issues that I feel very strongly about but know that I
can do nothing about. Two, in the news this morning: 1) Sending piles
of taxpayer money to the fairly wealthy people who live on the
Carolina beaches (with full knowledge of the risks) and 2) Stopping
the massive amount of expenditure of taxpayer money (billions)
harassing Sadam. I say that it is impractical for me to even think
that I could do anything about such issues. People much bigger than
me have tried and failed.

Fm: Roie
I think the "Rational Justification" paper was well written
and makes a very valid point. As a matter of fact I would argue that it
probably specifically answers the questions I had above about Family Values.

If I understand, you basically say that a moral structure to support
civilization requires social pressure to ensure that all members of society
know that their civilization and their ultimate good depends on their
cooperation and that each individual must be trustworthy, altruistic, and
responsible and any not showing these characteristics will be shunned or
banned or social outcasts or whatever.
How's that for condensing it all down to one sentence?

From Leon:
Yes, that's about it. For centuries philosophers have been trying to
come up with a non-religious basis for morals. It appears that the
social dilemmas result from a lack of a minimum set of morals. What I
am proposing is that we look at which moral rules are necessary to
eliminate the social dilemma. That mimimum set then defines the
"moral code" -- scientifically! Trust and its brother, integrity, are
obviously required. So called sexual morals will never show up, I
will bet.

Yes, I am looking for criticism. My original scheme was to post some
thoughts just to get discussion going. I was hoping that by
intellectual exchange of thoughts, progress could be made in the same
way it has been made by the physicists -- i.e., the scientific
method. That idea hasn't worked on the internet. Almost all
discussion degenerates into personal attacts.

From Roie:
I thought that too at one time. I can't get people to discuss ideas very
much either in person or on the Internet. I wonder why? It's no problem to
get people to talk about other people (O.J. or Princess Di). If you and I
keep up this type of discussion I may post selected excerpts of it on my web
site to see if it gets any comments.

From Leon:
The propensity to flame each other on the Newsgroups rather than
discuss issues objectively is a puzzlement. I wonder if any graduate
student has chosen to investigate this phenomenon for a dissertation?

Now, after all that babble, let me get to your specific comments.
There is a huge amount of evidence that people are dumber than they
used to be, including the revising upward of the test scores of the college
entrance exams (as they were about 60 points lower than they used to
be). But my basis is direct experience. I was a college teacher for
awhile. No need to go into how awful the capabilities of many of the students
were.

As far as "family values", no one has defined the term which I find
very amusing and have commented on it somewhere in my writings. Those
that advocate better "family values" make no attempt to rationally
justify what it must consist of.

But that wasn't my point. What I'm interested in writing on is
"attitude". Is it possible that life is more fulfilling (for many) if
they don't really know the facts about life? Certainly many people
avoid learning facts about unpleasant things. Certainly many
"cultured" persons avoid having their minds contaminated with posibly
truthful but unpleasant facts.

From Roie:
I agree with all you say above except that I would change your (for many) to
say (for most). I am not ready though yet to reach the conclusion that this
is a "bad" thing. I don't know if you are either. I would argue though that
one who is not interested enough in politics to study the candidates and the
issues should have the right to vote but has no business exercising that
right. I might even extend that argument to say that one who has not made a
fairly extensive good faith effort to study the issues has no business
expressing opinions on any subject. Course that has never stopped anyone
from doing so.

We certainly need some criteria for voting other than just having a
warm body temperature. But that would be impossible to implement in a
democracy. It is interesting that concept that democracy is
ultimately self defeating.

From Roie:
Democracy is not a good system of government. As far as I know it only has
two things going for it.

No one has been able to come up with a better system.

Any government must exercise some degree of power over the individual.
We can get most people to believe that that exercise of power is
legitimate if the individual is, in some way, involved in creating
that government.

From Leon:
On 1.: not necessarily so. Many great ideas have been suggested by
some brilliant philophers and scientists. Today, we have thousands of
academics that study the subject of "Public Choice" and have made
great progress in understanding the political progress (less on
coming up with a solution!). Yet these people are unheeded. Why,
because the government you happen to be living with has little to do
with the science of government but instead is totally determined by
the power and force of those who happen to be in power.

On 2.: I have a more cynical view, of course. People have very little
to do with government. They are manipulated into thinking that they
have some control over the government. I repeat a challenge I have
made many times: show me that you can change anything about the
government.

The greatest democracy in the world, the USA, was not created
"democratically". A few brilliant and caring individuals imposed this
government on the masses. We are very lucky -- it could have been a
terrible government if different people had been involved in its
formation. Further, you and I have never been asked about nor have we agreed to
the government we have. How is that different than a dictatorship? A
third point is that the citizens are quite easy to manipulate my the
media. This is very dangerous and was not anticipated by the
founders, apparently.

From Roie:
In the high school library in the early '60s I found a four volume set of
books. Although they had been on the shelves for about 15 years I was the
first to check them out. They were titled "The World's Great Thinkers".
There was a volume on political philosophy, one on scientific philosophy, one
on speculative philosophy and one on social philosophy. When I read those
plus some science fiction and a great amount of literature and history of
various kinds I began to think a little. I read Isaac Asimov, and
Loren Eisley, and Huxley (Julian and Aldous) and Margaret Mead, and B. F.
Skinner, and Arthur C. Clarke, and Eric Hoffer, and Vance Packard and many
many others. Maybe I'll make a list and put it on the Web.

Fm: Leon Felkins

I used to be a real techie. I started out as an electronic technician
and after the Navy paid for my Master's degree at the University of
Washington (where we were allowed to NOT take the usual liberal arts
courses) I becamed a no-nonsense engineer. I looked with some
amusement at those who tried to figure out the Human and felt it was
a waste of time (still do :-) ). But as I became more and more
involved with humans (getting into management, raising a family,
etc.) I started thinking more and more about the "human condition".
Then I read Harry Browne's book, and I sort of decided that thinking
about human foibles was a lot more fun than thinking about bits and
electrons. His book gave me the inspiration to follow my interests
rather than sticking with my established career.

Well, we found something to disagree on! (I always get a bit nervous
and suspicious when there is too much agreeing going on). There is
plenty of rationale behind the claim that ignorance is on the
increase. Self reliance and individual thinking probably had its peak
at the end of WWII. Whether it happened or not, you must agree that
it would be conceivable that with a great deal of sheltering from
having to think, encouraging people to be passively entertained (TV),
and dumbing down the schools COULD cause thinking to deteriorate.

From Roie:
Of course, I have to agree because of the way you worded that statement. It
happens that I tend to believe, as you do, that such a process has occurred.
However I know that all kinds of people believe all kinds of things, some
true, some untrue, and some simply unproven. To make a statement such as you
do above, "ignorance is on the increase", or as you do in your paper that I
just finished reading, "A Rational Justification for Ethical Behavior", that
"we have made little or no progress in solving the awful social problems we
are confronted with today."; I require a more specific definition of what you
mean by the statement and some statistics or study to support it.
Politicians keep talking about a decline in family values, but I have yet to
see an agreed on definition of what is meant by family values and how much it
has declined and over what period of time. I feel that to begin the process
of solving a problem it is first necessary to specifically define the
problem. This gives a clue as to how we will know if we have solved the
problem and also some ideas as to how to approach solutions.

From Leon:
Man, are we on the same wavelength! I have a great deal of
frustration with folks -- which is just about everybody -- that 1)
use undefined terms to prove something or to make a point and/or 2)
make claims based on hearsay, not bothering to find an authoritative
source.

A good example of 1) is the term "rights". People use the term
without question, pass massive legislation regarding the term and
even go to jail or die to defend the term -- without ever knowing
what it means. A few years ago I posted the question on the Libernet
asking for a definition. I got nasty mail and lots of definitions
(including, "'rights' is whatever a person has the right to do") but
nothing of substance. I then asked if we could make a list of
"rights" and we could then define it in terms of the list. No two
people come up with the same list!

Could it be that with some terms, we all know what it means but we
can't define it? Like pornography?

From Roie:
If we can't define it then we may think we all know what it means but we have
no way of knowing if we really do. I would argue that if we can't define it
then we really have no common agreement.

From Leon:
Your response puts me in an interesting position, for what you said
is what I would have said in response to nearly everyone else's position to
the contrary. So, I will take the contrary position then.

Surely you must notice that humans tend to have a mutual
understanding of the meaning of certain terms without a formal
definition. "Pornography" seems to be a good example and "rights" is
another. All of law and custom are filled with terms that have no
precise definition yet we function, with amazingly few lawsuits to
settle the meaning. Such terms as "reasonable", "prompt", "plus or
minus", "approximately", "well established", "mainline" (religions),
"fair", etc. fill the law books. It may be, like the rest of the
animals, we somehow understand vague terms just from the way they are
used.

On 2): recently relatives from my family and my wife's family have
visited my farm. Some on both sides, even though relatively poor, buy
bottled water. One youngster was carrying a bottle of spring water
imported from Canada! One evening while chatting, I asked the adults
why they buy bottled water. They said that the city water was not fit
to drink (but I have my own well). I asked them if they had any kind
of proof. No, just hearsay.

People routinely make expensive decisions based on a meme planted in
their heads without ever bothering to check it out. The "secondary
smoke will kill you" is one of the biggest!

From Roie:
My great aunt is in her eighties. A couple of years ago she was very sick
for quite a while and lost weight from 120 pounds down to about 100. She
complained that she was having trouble regaining the weight she had lost. We
visited her (She lives in Indiana) and went with her to get groceries. She
bought diet soft drinks and "lite" everything. Why? I guess because all the
other women she associates with buy that kind of thing.

Now she has very high blood pressure but doesn't want to go to the doctor
to get medicine. She says one of her friends told her that a daily dose of
vinegar and honey would bring the blood pressure down.

Before you say that this is an invalid example because she is probably
senile, I'll tell you that I know a number of much younger people who do very
similiar things.

From Leon:
I recognize that making a science out of human behavior may be an
impossible task, however. The problem is that every thing that is
"explained" is explained in terms of something else. That in turn is
explained in something else. And so on ("turtles all the way down" as
Steven Hawking quotes). A person comes to me and says that he
believes in Z on blind faith. I find that if I try to build a case
for Z, based on its causes, ultimately I have to accept something on
blind faith. Have I made any progress? Is my explanation any better
than his? I think so but many others do not. Scientists admit that at
the bottom all is faith.

Yet, when their models are better than superficial blind faith
because they are internally consistent. That is, when they build a
model on admittedly unproven premises, the fact that the model
survives for years without contradiction is somewhat of a proof that
the model is correct. That to me is better than blind faith.

From Roie:
Logical arguments are by necessity based on certain premises or assumptions
but if the premises are basic and simple and widely believed and if the logic
is valid then the only way to attack the conclusions is by attacking the
premises. This makes a much more sturdy case than just saying I believe its
so because Joe told me so or because we've always believed that.

The trick, of course, is in defining terms and premises and keeping the
logic valid. However, there is no reason that human behavior is any less a
valid subject for this method than anything else.

An argument put forth once in a creation vs. evolution argument was that all
the "so called" evidence for evolution was only there because the creator put
it there to test the faith of man. I always thought that was the perfect
argument. As far as I can tell there is no way to refute it and it simply
comes down to a matter of whether or not you are willing to accept that
premise.

From Leon:
That is true, of course, but a hard-nosed person will argue that by
basing your proof on arbitrary assumptions, your proof still does not
avoid the necessity of simply having faith in something. So, why
bother with the proof? My belief is that the consistancy of the
massive scientific structure built over a few assumptions is proof of
its validity. Astrology, for example, enjoys no such success.

Well, I think complexity may be a problem. When I was working on my
degree in Electrical Engineering, I had many friends who chose some
field in the Humanities because Electrical Engineering was too
complicated. This I found puzzling since electrical theory is very
well defined, has relatively few variables and equations to deal
with, and does almost exactly as theory would predict. The science
of humans, on the other hand, is just the opposite!

Chaos theory that came along a few years ago has added another factor
that would suggest that "understanding" humans or building a
predictive science may be impossible. That theory showed us that for
sufficiently complex phenomenon (such as the weather) even if you
know the equations, you can't predict ultimate response to infinitely
small disturbances.

Still -- just like other chaotic phenomena -- human responses can be
predicted "on the average". In fact, I think humans are much more
predictable, in mass, than is generally acknowledged. We have a
serious problem with complying with "political correctness", as was
displayed by the hubbub over the book *The Bell Curve*, which
interferes with any serious development of a theory of humans.

Amazing! We are in agreement again. I am not used to such insightful
thinking (as determined by the fact that I think the same way)! I
came to the same conclusion as a result of my engineering training.
In particular, in my career, I specialized in simulation and
mathematical modelling. In simulation, we have two things that
determine how a system will respond and grow: 1) the equations and 2)
the initial conditions. If we are simulating the motion of an
automobile, for instance, we have to state what condition the
simulation starts with: position, velocity and acceleration.

Now let us take this to the system called the "universe". It evolves
strictly bound by the functions that define it. But it had to start
with initial conditions. Those initial conditions could be any thing!
The universe could have started a million years ago or a millionth of
a second ago and you can't tell the difference if the initial
conditions were chosen appropriately!

That is a long way of saying the same thing you said in a sentence. :-{

As is probably obvious from my writings, I believe that the universe in
inherently diabolical. Most actions -- if not all -- have negative
consequences to the intended result that may be even greater than the intended
result. There are thousands of examples I could provide but one is the fact
that drugs that kill germs often make the germs stronger and meaner than ever.
(I just found a new book that discusses this concept, *Technology and the
Revenge of Unintended Consequences*. Have not read it yet.)

It may be that every significant problem faced by humanity is plagued by
this problem. It may be that no significant problem has a solution! The
diabolical nature of the Social Dilemmas, that I have written extensively
about, may be just the tip of the iceberg.

But the Social Dilemmas do provide an excellent illustration of what I am
talking about. The social dilemmas result from our confusion as to whether we
are loners -- like eagles -- or social animals -- like ants. We have serious
problems trying to be ants coming from our genetic makeup. The biologists say
that the fundamental motivating force of life is genes trying to promote
genes, i.e. *The Selfish Gene*, per Dawkins. The ant is social because the
worker ants will sacrifice their lives to protect the queen which just happens
to be where the genes are available for reproduction.

Such is not the case for Humans. Our genes selfishly try to promote the
individual's genes. Our driving force is selfishness. Therefore, we have the
Social Dilemmas. To socialize and to sacrifice for the group is unnatural for
humans. We didn't have Social Dilemmas when we were organized as small
hunter/gatherer families. Apparently, our natural state would be to live
somewhat like wolves.

Yet, we see tremendous advantages to large civilizations. Most people would
not seriously entertain the thought of going back to being aborigines.
Therefore we are forever stuck with the Social Dilemmas. That is very serious.
It could result in the destruction of humankind, as a minor "for instance".

Almost no one wants to hear this kind of talk. Humans seem to believe that
if something is nasty or potentially disastrous, you shouldn't talk about it.
That presents another philosophical issue worthy of discussion: "Is life
better if nasty things are hidden as much as possible, or is it better to
realistically face the situation?" I don't know, but I think it deserves
discussion.

I have trouble with both liberals and conservatives on this issue. The
conservatives have their head in the sand this way: they want to cling to the
past because they recognize that social issues are extremely complex and it
would be best to continue with what worked before. The problem is that what
worked before may not work today because conditions are not the same. For one
thing, we are not as innocent as we once were. But they are right on where
they respect the complexity of life and the avoidance of poorly thought out
"fixes".

The liberals seem to be unaware of "unintended" or "secondary"
consequences. They seem to be extremely naive. They say, "Don't take the
medicine if it tastes bad" seemingly unaware that they may die if they do not
sometimes take uncomfortable precautions. On the other hand, as I mentioned
above, their approach to life of avoiding the recognition of any "bad things"
may be the best way to get through life. Who knows?

All this is provided to suggest general ideas for your "Perspectives". In
line with this "diabolical nature of the universe", I could provide many
examples. One that you might consider adding is the following:

Should the "Village" raise our children?

Consider the following scenario. You live next door to an otherwise decent
couple that happens to beat the hell out of their children. The children seem
exceptionally well behaved by today's standards but they obviously do suffer
physically. What should be done? How much punishment is too much or too harsh
(here we have the "Vagueness" problem which I discuss on my pages)? What is
the role of the family vs. the "village"? Should raising children be left
entirely to the parents?

Here we have a serious example of the "vagueness" issue. We know that we
can't let parents beat their children to death. Yet we know that parents
should be primarily responsible for raising their children and other people
should leave them alone as long as punishments are minor and non-physical (why
is physical worse than mental? I have seen children destroyed by mental
harassment.). Where the "village" steps in is purely a judgement call with no
obvious place to do it!

What is the answer? I will bet that you and all others do not know! It is
just another part of the diabolical universe (this time resulting from our
efforts to socialize, just like the Social Dilemmas).

Thought you might be interested in an article I read in the newspaper
recently. It said that the Arkansas state legislature had passed a disaster
relief bill to provide help to those who suffered losses in tornados
widespread over the state on March 1st. The Governor, Mike Huckabee, a
Baptist minister, refused to approve the bill because it called for relief
for those affected by "acts of God". He said he did not believe that
destructive and deadly forces should be attributed to God.

One of the legislators, on the other hand, said, "To say God didn't create
tornadoes is just like saying he didn't create spring rains. If God didn't
create this universe and all the forces in it, then I don't know who did."

I understand they are now trying to agree on using both the terms, "acts of
God" and "natural disasters" in the law.

I see some basis for discussion here on at least three levels.

1. The stupidity of delaying much needed assistance to disaster victims due
to theological debates.

2. Another example of how people in the real world have often been hurt by
other people's religious beliefs. The best example, of course, is the great
number killed in religious wars but perhaps we overlook the cumulative
effect of thousands of less obvious examples such as this one. Another
example is the recent vote in Congress on foreign aid for family planning.
Some Republicans were for it because they said family planning would reduce
the number of abortions. Others were against it because they said they were
afraid the money might be used for abortions. (I suspect though that many
people are against any type of birth control because they believe that it is
important that as many babies as possible be born and that the quality of
people's lives is unimportant because the only important thing is the number
of souls available to be saved.)

3. Of course the larger question is the theological question of how bad
things can happen in a universe controlled by a good God.

As you know, sometimes things I read in the news or see on television cause
me to go off on a number of wild philosophical tangents. I really don't know
if this is a blessing or a curse.

Excellent site, I'm glad it exists. By and large I agree with what you
write with respect to the human condition.

Everyone is an individual and, as such, orthodox mindsets (be they
religious, scientific, political or philosophical) are never going to be
able to answer every individual's particular version of 'Why am I
here?'. The aim has to be for each to determine their own mindset, and
constantly re-evaluate their thinking rather than subconciously
accepting someone else's world view in toto. From this approach
hopefully springs the way through which increased tolerance,
consideration and respect of another's views may actually begin to make
things a little better for us all.

Science, having overturned religion as the provider of all answers in
the last 200 years or so, and having singularly failed to provide those
answers itself, has somewhat accidentally led us to a position where we
can at last begin to look for the answers within ourselves. Amid the
headlong rush on the part of commercial and other interests towards
building a technological god of whom we expect to be able to ask our
most searching questions, I am glad to see that a byproduct is the
formation of a global consciousness, where sane voices can be heard
above the chatter and babble.

From Roie:
I took a look at your site and I liked it. It is a very well done web site
and your thoughts are interesting.

Your view of Einstein's Theory is interesting and makes me want to take
time to review it again later and give it some thought.

Your view of death is based on a linear preception of time. If time is
actually not linear but is simply a 4th dimension like the other three, then
our existence in an afterlife or not is an accomplished fact which has, is,
and will occur and from a non linear perspective the problems you mention
with never ending time simply disappear.

From One Man:
Thanx a lot! Regarding the non-linear time: I've considered that and
can't get around what I feel is a paradox. If it's linear, then I've
covered that. If it's not, and I can only perceive it linearly (either
now or in the afterlife), same problem. If it's non-linear, and I can
deal with that somehow, then it's still a huge unknown. At some point I
still ask, "Then What?" The word Then may not be appropriate because our
terminology doesn't quite fit, but I still feel that if time has no
meaning, then effectively I will have experienced all that can be
experienced, and why should I go on. Of course, time being non-linear
doesn't mean it's without meaning, but I guess I have a hard time
envisioning it.

This is actually the heart of my whole philosophy and why I put the page
up - I NEED to solve this problem so that I can be comfortable with life
& death.

From Roie:
Each man has his own demons and solutions. From my perspective the solution
to your stated demon lies in learning to envision time as it exists in a non
linear manner. Another solution, of course, is in existentialism or Zen in
which you learn to lie in and enjoy the sun this afternoon and take no
thought for the morrow.

I often read your articles in the Courier Journal Magazine and
usually am in agreement with you. I think your article in the
July 29, Magazine concerning censorship including 2 Live Crew
was simply common sense. I do, however, have a couple of
comments brought to mind by a couple of things you wrote.

You wrote "We rate movies according to the extent to which they
show sexual activity and employ vulgar language." This is true
but incomplete. We actually rate movies according to the amount
of sex, vulgar language and violence they contain and there is
no indication from the ratings used whether the rating was
assigned due to sexual content or to violence or to both. To
me, this has always indicated that we Americans consider sex and
violence to be synonymous. I am not sure about the rest of
Americans, but in my life at least, sex and violence are two
entirely different things. Sex is a beautiful thing denoting
pleasure. I associate neither beauty nor pleasure with
violence. I think love and sex often have a very proper place
in many of the movies I enjoy. I think violence can be
necessary in many movies to get a point across or to set a mood
or for other reasons. Nevertheless, while I often enjoy sex in
movies, I can't say that I ever enjoy violence. I do feel that
sex, violence, vulgar language, music, color, actors, and many
other things are often misused in movies, but I try not to watch
those. Perhaps this attitude makes me weird or preverted or
out of step with the rest of America.

Your other comment that made me think was "... historically,
great art has survived (the censors) to inspire new generations
of artists." Yes, we think, great art has survived. But how do
we know that the greatest art did not fall prey to the censors
and was never experienced by mankind. If this is true, and it
could very well be, then we would have no way of knowing and the
world we live in today may very well be impoverished without us
being aware that this has occurred. Of course, philosophically,
we could ask, "If we don't know the difference, is there any
difference?". If we conclude that there is not, then maybe
censorship is inconsequential.

Anyway, thank you for stimulating my thought processes. May
your life be long, healthy, and filled with ideas.

This essay assumes that test score results are a very imperfect
and incomplete indicator of intelligence, that we can define
intelligence in terms of its characteristics, and that
intelligence is a matter of degree. A person is not either
intelligent or not intelligent, but rather everyone is
intelligent to some degree, although some may be said to have
the intelligence of a cabbage. Now, if the reader will accept
the above assumptions, what characteristics of intelligence can
we identify and agree upon?

1. An intelligent person has a well developed sense of humor
and irony based on an underlying sense of humility. He realizes
that the sum of things he does not know is immensely greater
than what he does know. He also realizes that many of the
things he knows are probably wrong. He has a sense of
perspective of the scale of time and space and existence such
that he knows the individual, even the highly intelligent
individual, is insignificant. Therefore true believers,
fanatics, and terrorists cannot be very intelligent. Due to
this characteristic the intelligent person may not be confident
and decisive enough to be effective. (Jimmy Carter syndrome.)

2. An intelligent person does not have as much need to define
himself or establish his personal identity in terms of social
interaction as do others. Although man is, by nature, a social
animal, more intelligent people are less so. I know several
people who are very unhappy, even lost, if they are not engaged
in social intercourse. The intelligent person can be happy when
he is alone. He can be entertained by his own mind because of a
more highly developed imagination. What does this mean about
his capacity for love? What is love? (It's probably the
subject for another essay.)

3. An intelligent person does not have as much need for faith
and magic as do others. Many people want witch doctors not
medical doctors and politicians who will promise them a free
lunch and preachers who will promise them heaven. They look at
processes of nature and technology as simply black boxes and are
not curious about how or why they work. What does this imply
about religious beliefs of the intelligent person?

An intelligent person has a strong sense of curiosity, a need to
know about the how and why of the world around him. From
learning and knowing he develops his concept of the world and of
his place in it. This is both the science of knowledge and the
art of living. An intelligent person is often impatient with
the limitations imposed on his intellect by time and space until
he eventually gains the wisdom to accept these limitations.

4. The intelligent person tends to think in neural networks
rather than by linear logic. (Right brain as well as left
brain.) Each acquired fact must be assimilated into the
existing body of knowledge and in doing so often the
juxtaposition of two or more facts or ideas will lead to a new
idea or conclusion. Thus knowledge expands exponentially. I
suspect that the thought processes of many people tend to be
much more linear so that there are not as many juxtapositions
and comparisons, not as much imagination involved. Knowledge
thus expands by increment.

5. Intelligent people seem to be fascinated by abstract thought
and are usually very interested in math and language. They love
to read; solve word, math, and logic puzzles; and make puns.
They often want to express themselves in language, as witness
this essay. This tendency to think abstractly rather than just
feeling also tends to insulate them from the world about them
and they become limited in experiences by the inadequacies of
their languages or mathematical systems.

6. Intelligent people perceive the world around them in terms of
the world concept derived from their internal body of knowledge.
In walking through the woods, one man may see a mass of green
vegetation and tree trunks while another may see a functioning
ecosystem populated by various plant and animal species many of
which he can identify and has studied.

Conclusion: I suspect, after completing this essay, that I have
just described the characteristics of only one type of
intelligent person, what I might call the scientific type, and
have missed one or many other whole groups of intelligent people
who are probably the artistic or more creative types. Is that
true or do the more creative types share these same
characteristics and, if so, to what degree?

Types of intelligence

Naturalist Intelligence (Nature Smart)

Designates the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants,
animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world
(clouds, rock configurations). This ability was clearly of value in our
evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be
central in such roles as botanist or chef. It is also speculated that much of
our consumer society exploits the naturalist intelligences, which can be
mobilized in the discrimination among cars, sneakers, kinds of makeup, and the
like.

Musical Intelligence (Musical Smart)

Musical intelligence is the capacity to discern pitch, rhythm, timbre, and
tone. This intelligence enables us to recognize, create, reproduce, and
reflect on music, as demonstrated by composers, conductors, musicians,
vocalist, and sensitive listeners. Interestingly, there is often an affective
connection between music and the emotions; and mathematical and musical
intelligences may share common thinking processes. Young adults with this kind
of intelligence are usually singing or drumming to themselves. They are
usually quite aware of sounds others may miss.

Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart)

Logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to calculate, quantify,
consider propositions and hypotheses, and carry out complete mathematical
operations. It enables us to perceive relationships and connections and to use
abstract, symbolic thought; sequential reasoning skills; and inductive and
deductive thinking patterns. Logical intelligence is usually well developed in
mathematicians, scientists, and detectives. Young adults with lots of logical
intelligence are interested in patterns, categories, and relationships. They
are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.

Existential Intelligence

Sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence,
such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here.

Interpersonal Intelligence (People Smart)

Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand and interact
effectively with others. It involves effective verbal and nonverbal
communication, the ability to note distinctions among others, sensitivity to
the moods and temperaments of others, and the ability to entertain multiple
perspectives. Teachers, social workers, actors, and politicians all exhibit
interpersonal intelligence. Young adults with this kind of intelligence are
leaders among their peers, are good at communicating, and seem to understand
others’ feelings and motives.

Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (Body Smart)

Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is the capacity to manipulate objects and
use a variety of physical skills. This intelligence also involves a sense of
timing and the perfection of skills through mind–body union. Athletes,
dancers, surgeons, and craftspeople exhibit well-developed bodily kinesthetic
intelligence.

Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart)

Linguistic intelligence is the ability to think in words and to use
language to express and appreciate complex meanings. Linguistic intelligence
allows us to understand the order and meaning of words and to apply meta-
linguistic skills to reflect on our use of language. Linguistic intelligence
is the most widely shared human competence and is evident in poets, novelists,
journalists, and effective public speakers. Young adults with this kind of
intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword
puzzles.

Intra-personal Intelligence (Self Smart)

Intra-personal intelligence is the capacity to understand oneself and
one’s thoughts and feelings, and to use such knowledge in planning and
directioning one’s life. Intra-personal intelligence involves not only an
appreciation of the self, but also of the human condition. It is evident in
psychologist, spiritual leaders, and philosophers. These young adults may be
shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.

Spatial Intelligence (Picture Smart)

Spatial intelligence is the ability to think in three dimensions. Core
capacities include mental imagery, spatial reasoning, image manipulation,
graphic and artistic skills, and an active imagination. Sailors, pilots,
sculptors, painters, and architects all exhibit spatial intelligence. Young
adults with this kind of intelligence may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw
puzzles, or spend free time drawing or daydreaming.

Adults often find it amazing that children know about 1/2 of what they will
learn by age 4. Then by around 7 1/2 they have three quarters of it. From that
time on it is addition of knowledge and developing the thinking and reasoning
skills.

For most young people in their late teens to mid twenties they may find
mentors in older people they know and work with where they can learn. They may
go to school or travel and learn also. With this learning they can begin to
think for themselves. (As opposed to listening to political pundits, reality
show hosts, talk show hosts, preachers, con men, etc and being influenced by
them.) This is where they will begin to develop their dynamic thinking skills.

This author of "The Spy Who Spoke Porpoise", "They Both Were Naked", and
"Generation of Vipers" wrote in his "Essay on Morals" that the steps that lead
to Carl Jung's hypothesis and the hypothesis itself are:

Man is an animal.

Animals, including man, are governed by instinct.

Hypothesis: Instinct has taken form in man as legend.

Theory of the Law of Opposites which governs instinctual activity:
compensation, complement and conservation operate subjectively just as they do
in the objective world.

"Nothing is worthwhile; everything is futile. For what does a man get for
all his hard work?

Generations come and go but it makes no difference. The sun rises and
sets and hurries around to rise again. The wind blows south and north, here
and there, twisting back and forth, getting nowhere. The rivers run into the
sea but the sea is never full, and the water returns again to the rivers and
flows again to the sea... everything is unutterably weary and tiresome. No
matter how much we see, we are never satisfied; no matter how much we hear we
are not content.

History merely repeats itself. Nothing is truly new; it has all been done
and said before. What can you point to that is new? How do you know it
didn't exist long ages ago? We don't remember what happened in those former
times, and in the future generations no one will remember what we have done
back here. "

While he was minding his own business as he lived in Uz they argued about
his faith. As a result of the argument this just and innocent man lost his
seven sons, his three daughters, his wealth and property, and became afflicted
with terrible diseases. Who were they? Who was he? Where do we read of his
afflictions? This story is a comment on the extent to which man is at the
mercy of a universe beyond his control and his attitude toward this
situation.

The author of "Utopia" was beheaded because he refused to deny his
allegiance to the Pope. Who was this author and what was the subject of his
book which was considered the first of a particular type of books?

Born in Italy in 1548, he first became a Dominican priest, later a writer
and philosopher. He wrote of an infinite universe and could not conceive that
God and nature could be separate and distinct entities as taught by Genesis,
as taught by the Church and even as taught by Aristotle. Eventually he was
burned alive by the Catholic church for teaching that Copernicus was right
and Earth was not the center of the Universe. Who was this little known
martyr?
see Answer

In 1885, a serious epidemic of smallpox broke out in Montreal Canada. Few
Protestants died, but the Roman Catholic parishioners died in great numbers.
Why was the epidemic so much more deadly to Roman Catholics?

In the late summer of 1960 he accepted an appointment as research
professor in the Center for Personality Study at Harvard. On his way from
Berkeley to Harvard he took a side trip into Mexico. His experience there
together with his reading of Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of Perception" and his
subsequent association with Richard Alpert changed his outlook on life and made
him one of the most controversial figures of the last half of the twentieth
century. Who was he and what happened to him in Mexico?

He tried to grok the fullness of Life and God with his water brothers.
They included Jubal Harshaw, Ben Caxton, and Gillian Boardman. Who was this
character, in what book, written by what author? It raised many questions
about humans and their social, political and religious customs and beliefs.

In the year 632 A. F. (After Ford) the World State's motto was "Community,
Identity, Stability". Bokanovsky's Process enabled up to Ninety-six
identical twins to be created from one fertilized egg. This was one of the
major instruments of social stability because diversity obviously has a
destabilizing effect on society.
Imagine the folly of allowing children to play games that require nothing
more than a few sticks, a ball or two and perhaps a bit of netting when they
could so easily be conditioned to play games which require elaborate and
expensive apparatus and thus increase consumption.
The author of the novel containing these ideas felt that it was quite
possibly true that humans were given free will in order to choose between
insanity on the one hand and lunacy on the other. Name this
writer/philosopher?

"You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the
stars. You have a right to be here. And whether it is clear
to you or not, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."
It was originally written in 1927. Who was the writer and what was the title
of the larger work from which this excerpt is taken?

A 16th century political philosopher, he said that the three good types of
government are a principality, an aristocracy, and a democracy. But, he
continued, they easily turn into a tyranny, an oligarchy, and anarchy
respectively. Who was this guy?

We live in a universe of three dimensional space and one dimension of time.
Why not two dimensions or four or some other combination? Why do we remember
the past and not the future? Why does entrophy increase rather than decrease?
One way of answering these questions is to invoke the anthropic principal.
How does this provide an answer?
see Answer

Two principles necessary for the existence of the universe as scientists
now perceive it, Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle and Pauli's Exclusion
Principle, call into serious question any deterministic view of the Universe
and may even mean that there is no point which can be determined as the
instant of the "Big Bang" or that such a point may not be a valid concept.
How does this impact on philosophers' conception of the nature of or
definition of God?It is realized that this question is somewhat subjective. A correct answer
will be considered to be any answer that demonstrates an understanding of the
two principles mentioned and the relationship between cosmology and religious
philosophy.see Answer

His writings influenced Darwin, in writing "Origin of Species". Many
people think his message concerned the inevitability of over population.
Actually, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, he wrote about adverse
effects on population brought on by increasing population; war, starvation,
infertility, disease. In other words, although he did not use the terms, he
discussed carrying capacities and feedback mechanisms. Who was this student
of population increase and food supply?
see Answer

What is the name for a philosophy that asserts that the spiritual rather
than the material is the fundamental reality? It is an idealist philosophy as
opposed to the empiricists. It is associated with Ralph Waldo Emerson and
Henry David Thoreau.
see Answer

Born in 1912, he was one of the first to raise the concept of artificial
intelligence. He believed that machines could exhibit (not just mimic)
intelligence. He also believed that biological form was simply a logical
result of chemical and physical processes. He applied the concept of the
algorithm to digital computers. Who was this mathematician, computer pioneer,
and philosopher?
see Answer

In an ancient city whose lighthouse was one of the wonders of the world at
that time was probably the world's greatest library containing over 400,000
scrolls, copies of all the books known in the world. Now that library and the
entire center of learning built around it are gone and no one knows where,
when or why. What city was this, named for the great conqueror who built it?
see Answer

To explain and popularize science in a world given to superstition, he
wrote one of the first books of science fiction. It was called the
"Somnium", "The Dream", and was about a journey to the moon. Science
fiction was such a new idea at the time that the book was used as evidence
that the author's mother was a witch. Who was this early scientist?
see Answer

Many Jewish families in the past protected newborn children by providing
an amulet above their bed. On the amulet were the names of three angels.
What were these names and from what evil were the babies thus protected?
see Answer

Teleological ethics teaches that we should act so as to maximize the
greatest future good and the least future harm. This raises the question of
whether we mean personal or collective good or harm. By this school of ethics
it would be right to murder Jack the Ripper in his infancy because, by doing
so, numerous murders could be prevented.

This late eighteenth century philosopher would disagree saying that the
categorical imperative forbids any murder and that the ends cannot be used to
justify immoral means.

Who was this thinker, proponent of deontological ethics, and professor at
the University of Konigsberg?
see Answer

"My message is the practice of compassion, love, and kindness. Compassion
can be put into practice if one recognizes the fact that every human being is
a member of humanity and the human family regardless of differences in
religion, culture, color, and creed. Deep down there is no difference.

We should try never to let our happy frame of mind be disturbed. Whether we
are suffering at present or have suffered in the past, there is no reason to
be unhappy. If we can remedy it, why be unhappy? And if we cannot, what use is
there in being depressed about it? That just adds more unhappiness and does no
good at all.

By developing a sense of respect for others and a concern for their
welfare, we reduce our own selfishness, which is the source of all problems,
and enhance our sense of kindness which is a natural source of goodness."

Tenzin Gyatso

Who is this man? What is his full title? Where is his homeland?
see Answer

This philosopher and traveller from the fifth century B.C. claimed that
the universe was a purely mechanical system obeying fixed laws. He explained
the origin of the universe through atoms moving randomly and colliding to form
larger bodies and worlds. He also believed that space is infinite having
always existed and that the number of atoms are infinite. His philosophy
contains an early form of the conservation of energy. Who was this early
thinker?
see Answer

So live, that when thy summons comes to join
The innumerable caravan, which moves
To that mysterious realm where each shall take
His chamber in the silent halls of death,
Thou go not, like the quarry slave at night,
Scourged to his dungeon, but, sustained and soothed
By an unfaltering trust, approach thy grave,
Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch
About him, and lies down to pleasant dreams.

This English philosopher, jailed twice for his anti-war and disarmament
views, won the Nobel prize for literature and wrote "A History of Western
Philosophy". He died in 1970 at the age of 97. Who was he?
see Answer

This early 19th century German philosopher saw history as a working out of
God's plan. Individual humans - especially the great heroes of world history
- are the principal means of change, while peoples and states are the
embodiment of each phase. He saw Great Men as the only real agents of
history. He believed that individual welfare or suffering simply did not
matter in the sweep of world history, advancing like a juggernaut over the
corpses of individuals. Who was this man, influential in German thought and
in the development of pantheism?
see Answer

For I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth, but hearing oftentimes
The still, sad music of humanity,
Not harsh or grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue. And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean, and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man,
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things. Therefore am I still
A lover of the meadows and the woods,
And mountains; and of all that we behold
From this green earth; of all the mighty world
Of eye and ear, both what they half-create,
And what perceive; well pleased to recognize
In nature and the language of the sense,
The anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse,
The guide, the guardian of my heart, and soul
Of all my moral being.

Who is this poet who finds God in nature and in what poem does he thus
tell us of his feelings?
see Answer

When he was on the island of Patmos he was given a message to deliver to
the seven churches in Asia. He wrote down what he saw and was told. Who was
he and what was the name of the book that he wrote? It described the breaking
of the seven seals and foretold of things to come.
see Answer

This Dominican Saint and Scholastic incorporated reason into theology with
a philosophy holding that faith and reason constitute two harmonious realms;
theology and science cannot contradict each other. Who was this 13th century
theologian?
see Answer

What 17th century Irish satiric writer wrote the proposal below?
What social problem was he satirizing?

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my
acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well
nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and
wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled;
and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a
fricassee or a ragout.
I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that
of the hundred and twenty thousand children already
computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof
only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we
allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is,
that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a
circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one
male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the
remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in
the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the
kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck
plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump
and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an
entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone,
the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and
seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good
boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in
the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a
God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
This is a quote from what famous scientist?
see Answer

Belief that god is present in all of nature, rather than transcending it.

Belief that God is the universe and the universe is God or, more generally,
that the universe is divine.

Doctrine that identifies God with the whole universe, every particle, tree,
table, animal, and person being part of Him.

Doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe
and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's
personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a
just man is also a prison."
"I ... do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society
which I have not joined."
"If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from
all the societies which I had never signed on to; but I did not know where to
find a complete list."
"I was put into a jail once ... for one night; and, as I stood considering the
walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a
foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help
being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I
were mere flesh and bones, to be locked up."
He argued that it is a man's duty to disobey unjust laws and that if even one
man will do so consistently and pay the consequences that will be the
beginning of the end of those laws.
Name the well known essay and the philosopher.
see Answer

In the 1960's this playwright argued in a book that wars and
aggressive behavior were manifestations of a killing instinct evolved as men
became successful carnivores (hunters). He then wrote two other popular books
about territoriality and social behavior. Who was this author and what were
the names of his three books?
see Answer

All-Father created the huge world ash tree whose tree branches support the
earth. It has three roots, the spiritual, the terrestrial, and the infernal.
It is watered by the Urdar fountain, Mimir's well, and the spring, Hvergelmir.
What is the name of this tree?
see Answer

In 451-450 B.C. the law of the Twelve Tables was published. This brought
to this people the same political tool that had first been used in Babylon in
the time of Hammurabi about 1500 years before. Who were these people and what
political system leading to what great empire were they developing? What was
this political tool?
see Answer

When Susanna, wife of Joakim, took off her clothing to bathe in the pool
in the garden, she was accosted by two elders. When she refused their
advances they accused her of adultery. As she was about to be put to death
for this crime, Daniel was able to prove her innocence. How did he do this?
Where do we read this story?
see Answer

In the late nineteenth century this philosopher/writer wrote the phrase,
"God is Dead". For the next century speakers and writers argued over the
meaning and the truth of the phrase. Who was this famous thinker?
see Answer

He has achieved success who has
lived well,
laughed often
and loved much;
who has enjoyed the trust of pure women,
the respect of intelligent men
and the love of little children;
who has filled his niche
and accomplished his task;
who has left the world better than he found it,
whether by an improved poppy,
a perfect poem,
or a rescued soul;
who has never lacked appreciation of earth's beauty
nor failed to express it;
who has always looked for the best in others
and given them the best he had;
whose life was an inspiration;
whose memory is a benediction.

You know, we haven't got any business in those faraway wars.
Seven thousand miles is a long way to go to shoot somebody,
especially if you are not right sure they need shooting, and
you are not sure whether you are shooting the right side or
not. You see, it's their war and they have a right to fight
it as they see fit, without any advice from us.

One example of the time travel paradox is that if I went back in time to
the time before my grandfather had any children and caused something to happen
which resulted in his death, then I would not have been born to go back in
time and cause his death. Why is this paradox not a problem for those who
propose a "many worlds" universe?
see Answer

In the largest mass execution in American history 38 men were hanged in
one day. Over three hundred had been condemned to hang in 393 trials held in
only a six week period. The condemned were tried and sentenced to death
without the benefit of counsel. When and where did this occur and who were
the condemned? What legal argument was used to justify denying legal
representation to the defendents?
see Answer

For over 40 years Dr. Thomas Harvey kept a remarkable thing behind a
cooler in his office. Then Dr. Sandra Witelson at McMaster got a chance to
study it. What was it and what did she discover about it?
see Answer

Thecla was betrothed to Thamyris. She did not marry him because she
listened to the teachings of a man of a small stature with meeting eyebrows,
bald [or shaved] head, bow-legged, strongly built, hollow-eyed, with a large
crooked nose. Because she followed this man Thecla was ordered to be burned,
thrown naked to wild beasts, threatened with rape, and rejected by her
mother.
Who was this man that she followed and what did he teach?
see Answer

This late 18th century and early 19th century French botanist and
zoologist is best known for his study of invertebrates. He explained nature
as being controlled by three biological laws: environmental influence on
organ development, change in body structure based on use and disuse of parts,
and inheritance of acquired characteristics. Who was he and what field of
biological science begun in 1900 and built on the work of an Austrian monk
eventually replaced his idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics?
see Answer

Thomas Edison, after he had invented the electric light bulb, looked
for ways to prolong the life of the filament. One thing he tried was
to seal a metal wire into the evacuated bulb near the filament but not
touching it. This didn't preserve the life of the filament but Edison
noticed that an electric current seemed to flow from the filament to the
wire across the vacuum gap. Although Edison could find no use for
this knowledge he patented it in 1884 and called it the "Edison effect."

In 1904 an electrical engineer who had worked with Edison made use of
the "Edison effect" and of the developing electron theory to devise an
evacuated glass bulb with a filament and wire which would let current
pass through in one direction and not in the other.

In 1906 an American inventor modified this device by introducing a
metal plate which allowed it to amplify electric current as well as
rectify it. This invention became the basis for many modern electronic
devices and changed the world. What was this invention called and
how was it used and who was the American Inventor?
see Answer

Explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been called "Time's
Arrow". What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how is it related to
entropy? Due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics homeostasis requires the
expenditure of energy. Since Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity applies
when spacetime is flat, will the Second Law of Thermodynamics not apply across
a curved spacetime continuum? (This requires some speculation.)
see Answer

This genus contains trees of myth and of religious significance in England
and it contains shrubs in North America. It has poisonous leaves and seeds
although the fruit pulp is not poisonous. The picture below is typical of its
fruits. Name the genus.

Aristarchus of Samos wrote a treatise On the Sizes and Distances of the
Sun and Moon and was said by Archimedes to be the first to hypothesize that
the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the
sun on the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the
orbit. In his treatise, Aristarchus reported a method to determine the sizes
relative to the earth of the sun and the moon and also their relative
distances from the earth. What was his method of determining these?
see Answer

In 1733 Richard Saunders saying he was "excessive poor" began publishing
for "some considerable share of the profits" and added to the end of his name
the title, philom. What did he publish? Who was he? What is the meaning of
the title, philom.?
see Answer

Whooping Cranes are a very endangered species with only about 300 to 400
left in the world and only between 100 and 200 of these migrating in the wild
from northern to southern North America with their habitat west of the
Mississippi River. Since young birds learn the migration routes from older
birds there are no longer any whooping cranes left which know the migration
routes in eastern North America. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service hopes to
reintroduce this species to the eastern United States. How do they theorize
they can overcome the fact that no cranes know those migration routes? (Now,
in the autumn of 2000, they are in the process of testing their theory. How?)
see Answer

Tom and Joe are big baseball fans. Tom is a Met's fan and Joe is a
Yankee's fan. Joe had to work during a recent World Series game and since he
would have no access to TV or radio he asked Tom to videotape the game for
him. During the game while Tom was taping it began to look like the Mets
might lose. So Tom, being religious, got down on his knees and prayed for the
Mets to come from behind.
Tom did not tell Joe the outcome of the game but just gave him the videotape.
Later, while watching the tape, Joe began to think his favored Yankees might
lose so he also said a prayer trying to influence the outcome of the game.
Now some people might say the Joe was foolish praying to influence the
outcome of a game that had already been decided and was recorded on videotape.
They might even think that Joe was more foolish in his praying than Tom.
Based on his philosophy, how do you think John Calvin would feel about this
question? Would he feel that Joe was more foolish than Tom? Why or why not?
see Answer

What type of microscope provided the first images of individual atoms on
the surfaces of materials and can image atomic details as tiny as 1/25th the
diameter of a typical atom, which corresponds to a resolution several orders
of magnitude better than the best electron microscope. Who invented this
microscope and when?
see Answer

I need to pump water from a stream in the mountains to my cabin on a hill
above the stream. There is no electricity available and no road to the stream
giving access to deliver fossil fuels. Due to the protection of the hills
wind power is not an option. Without using wind, electricity, gas, oil, coal,
or wood what is the best type of water pump for my needs and what source of
power will it use?
see Answer

From about 1935 to 1948 a debate raged among biologists in the USSR. The
man who was most responsible for winning the debate and setting Soviet science
back for years started something called the "vernalisation movement". He and
his followers announced a new theory of heredity that rejected the existence
of genes and held that the basis of heredity did not lie in some special self-
reproducing substance. On the contrary, the cell itself, in their view,
developed into an organism, and there was no part of it not subject to
evolutionary development. Heredity was based on the interaction between the
organism and its environment, through the internalisation of external
conditions. They thus recognised no distinction between genotype and
phenotype.
The science of genetics was denounced as reactionary, bourgeois, idealist and
formalist. It was held to be contrary to the Marxist philosophy of dialectical
materialism. Its stress on the relative stability of the gene was supposedly
a denial of dialectical development as well as an assault on materialism. Its
emphasis on internality was thought to be a rejection of the
interconnectedness of every aspect of nature. Its notion of the randomness and
indirectness of mutation was held to undercut both the determinism of natural
processes and man's ability to shape nature in a purposeful way.
This man's quotes include:

"It is better to know less, but to know just what
is necessary for practice."
and

"In order to obtain a certain result, You must want to obtain precisely
that result; if you want to obtain a certain result, you will obtain it .... I
need only such people as will obtain the results I need".

In a TV movie in which Earth is threatened by an asteroid, the Hubble
Space Telescope is turned toward the asteroid to transmit real time video of
the approaching threat. What is wrong with this scenario?
see Answer

They are called "Killer Lakes" because, in 1986, the one pictured below
killed 1700 people two years after the other lake had killed 37 people. What
are the names of these two lakes? Where are they located? How do they kill
people?

When I was in high school and college there were no electronic
calculators. I used a couple of mechanical devices to perform the same
functions and became somewhat adept at their use. One was an instrument used
to add and subtract by means of sliding beads. The other was an instrument to
multiply and divide by means of sliding wooden or plastic panels marked with
logarithmic scales. What were these two instruments?
see Answer

There is no actual retrograde motion of the planets in our
solar system except for the rotation of one planet. What is the
cause of apparent retrograde motions of the planets and what
planet actually exhibits retrograde rotation?
see Answer

Between 4 and 6 am on Sunday morning, November 18, 2001, residents of the
east coast of the United States will be able to see a meteor storm that is
predicted to be the most spectacular within current lifetimes. Other similar
storms were in November of 1799, and 1833 and 1966. In general such heavy
meteor showers in November occur every 33 to 34 years. Why do they occur
every 33 to 34 years?

Spacecraft from earth have yet to visit one planet in our solar system.
What planet? Plans to launch a spacecraft to visit this planet include plans
to sample its atmosphere. To do this it will be necessary for the spacecraft
to reach the planet before the year 2020 or else it will be necessary to wait
over 200 years. Why?
see Answer

Spider silk can be useful as it is a very tough material. A biotech
company thinks that it can be commercially valuable for such uses as
bulletproof vests and aerospace and medical supplies. This company's answer
to the problem of how to mass produce spider silk involves goats. What is the
name of the company and how are goats involved?
see Answer

I am a honey bee in a hive. Another bee returns from foraging for new
sources of nectar and begins to dance in the hive. Rather than doing a waggle
or "tail wagging" dance, the newly arrived scout bee does a round dance. What
do I now know about the source of nectar that that bee has discovered?
see Answer

Below is a list of pairs of words describing ways of thinking. One word
of each pair describes left-brain thinking and the other describes right-brain
thinking processes. Please split these pairs into two groups of words based on
whether that particular way of thinking is more a left-brain or a right-brain
activity.

This metal alloy of Nickel and Titanium, when it is below its critical
temperature, is in its martensitic state and can be bent easily. However,
above that temperature it is in its autenitic state and becomes rigidly locked
into a previously "remembered" shape. What is the name of this alloy and what
general term is given to alloys with this characteristic?
see Answer

One of the biggest and most ancient lakes of the world is situated nearly
in the center of Asia in a huge stone bowl set 445 m above sea level. Everyone
who has been to its shores is impressed and charmed by the grandeur, size, and
unusual might of this miracle of nature. What lake is this and about how large
and how old is it?
see Answer

Probably the most horrifying legendary sea monster, this
huge, many armed, creature could reach as high as the top of a
sailing ship's main mast. They would attack a ship, wrap their arms around
the hull and capsize it. The crew would drown or be eaten by the monster.
This monster was probably real.
It is probably a carnivorous mollusk with a beak-like mouth strong enough
to cut through a steel cable and whose eyes are the largest in the animal
kingdom -- growing up to 45 centimeters (18 inches) wide.
It is believed to feed on, among other things, the world's
biggest animals with several eyewitness stories from fisherman who have seen
it in fierce battles with whales.
What creature is thought to be this legendary monster?
see Answer

According to the Ancient Greeks, there are three women who write the book
of life.
One is the spinner, one is the weaver, and one cuts the cloth.
What names are given to them by the Greeks individually and
collectively? (Use Greek terms.)
see Answer

Where would we find the world's largest known crystals?
"There are huge selenite crystals the size of pine trees, 30 to 50 feet high,
with some weighing in excess of 10 tons."
They are protected from vandalism by temperatures hovering near 150 degrees F.
with 100% humidity. A person can only stay in that environment for six to ten
minutes.
see Answer

Several centuries B.C. Siddhartha married a neighboring princess named
Yasodhara and she bore him a son whom they called Rahula. What was
Siddhartha's surname? After his life changing experience the world knew him
by another name. By what name is he better known?
see Answer

Through winter's cold and summer's breeze,
She's the author of our milk and cheese;
When she's gone and at last she rests,
She leaves us numerous bequests;
The briefcases that she leaves behind,
protect the plans of all mankind.
But belts are her halo and crown;
They keep our pants from falling down.

The American biologist, Lynn Margulis, espouses a theory that evolution is
driven more by cooperation, symbiosis, among organisms rather than, as Darwin
theorized, by competition. According to this theory new species can be
created by endosymbiosis and the biosphere itself is simply a mass of
cooperating bacteria. Explain the genetic basis for this theory and the
evidence supporting it and its implications?
see Answer

It has been found that some (maybe most or all) disease causing bacteria,
when they are present in a victim's body, do not begin to attack their host
until sufficient numbers of the bacteria are present for the ensuing attack to
be significant. What signals the bacteria to begin such an attack? Please
tell something about the researchers and the research in this field.
see Answer

"Go, eat your bread in gladness, and drink your wine in joy; for your
action was long ago approved by God. Let your clothes always be freshly
washed, and your head never lack ointment. Enjoy happiness with a woman you
love all the fleeting days of life that have been granted to you under the sun
-- all your fleeting days. For that alone is what you can get out of life and
out of the means you acquire under the sun. Whatever it is in your power to
do, do with all your might."
Where do we find these words of existentialist philosophy?
see Answer

Born in 1842, he wrote a two volume work on psychology in 1890 which was
called the James and later an abridgement of it called the Jimmy. He is
recognized as the father of American pragmatism. Who was he?
see Answer

Man's needs in order of importance

air

water

food

shelter

health

energy

art, culture, entertainment, companionship

Originally man made a living for himself and his tribe by hunting and
gathering. He used his time on earth to provide himself and his tribe with
food and shelter. His primary needs, air and water, were free and were
available in his environment as was companionship. Health was generally a
matter left to fate. Energy was not needed until he discovered the advantages
of fire and then it was necessary also to find and gather fuel. Art, culture
and entertainment were of a very simple type.

About 10,000 years ago life changed due to the development of agriculture. Men
discovered how to grow crops and husband livestock and turned from hunting and
gathering to farming. This allowed the construction of more permanent
structures and the growth of villages. It also led to the idea of ownership
of land and animals because growing a crop and keeping livestock requires that
a person have continuous access to the same plot of land and that others can
not gather or take that which he has grown or tended. This lead to the concept
of property and inheritance and towns and cities concentrating the population
much more than had rural villages. This meant that more time was required to
maintain property and to grow crops and livestock and leisure time was rare.

At this point in his history man was paid for his labor and for his skills by
the amount of food he was able to procure. Labor is defined as the amount of
time (life) which must be expended and skill by the wisdom available to make
the use of labor efficient. In other words the guy who spent ten hours a day
farming and came home with one bushel of wheat was not paid as well as the guy
who spent ten hours a day farming and came home with ten bushels of wheat.
The amount of labor was the same but the differences in efficiency of labor
were due either to luck or to skill in the way the labor was utilized.

A rudimentary economy based on barter developed. I trade you some of the
grain I have grown in return for some of the meat you have grown.
We have to reach an agreement, of course, on how much grain is of
equal value as how much meat. This could also lead to specialization of labor
in that if I were better (more efficient) at producing grain and you were more
efficient at animal husbandry then I could grow grain while you tended to your
livestock and both of us could eat both grain and meat.

This soon led to the idea of finding a medium of exchange so that if I needed
someone to provide me a service such as shoeing a horse and I produced only
grain but that horse shoer had plenty of grain, I needed some way to pay him
with something that he could use to buy the fish he might need. Anything
could be used as a medium of exchange so long as it was so rare or hard to
obtain that more effort was necessary to obtain it than it was worth as a
medium of exchange. So certain rare shells and various other things were used
until eventually rare gems and metals such as rubies, diamonds, silver and
gold came into common use as money.

It soon became evident that if a person was able to accumulate a lot of money
this could give him power and be converted to income by loaning it to others
or investing it in other income producing goods such as buying another horse
which could be used to produce goods or could be rented to others. This idea
led to the financial services sector of the economy. Some people became
entrepreneurs as they had the skill to bring together and organize labor and
money to increase efficiency of production and, in the process, make a profit
for themselves.

So sources of production are then labor, management skills, land and capital
or wealth. All production comes from land or natural resources through the
application of labor but management can organize, through the use of capital,
labor to increase efficiency of production. The return to labor is wages.
The return to entrepreneurship or management is profit. The return to land is
rent. The return to capital or wealth is interest.

The problems of such an economic system then become how to price goods and
services and how to distribute the wealth produced by a society equitably.
How do we determine the value of labor, management, land and capital so that
most people feel fairly treated? One idea is to each according to his
contribution. Another idea is from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need.

The basic unit of measure is the value of labor. If the value of labor is
based on 8 dollars per hour of time and if the average person labors for 2,000
hours per year then the average income becomes $16,000 per man year. Based on
these units what is the value of management? Since management implies more
wisdom or a higher level of efficiency than manual labor such as ditch digging
or picking apples then it follows that if a year of manual labor is worth
$16,000 then a year of management requiring an equal amount of a man's time
should be worth more. The question is: What is reasonable? Perhaps five or
ten times the value of manual labor could be argued to be reasonable, but
would we argue that a value of a thousand times that value would be
reasonable? At least partly, that depends on the level of management required
for the job. For instance, a skilled laborer such as a machinist provides a
mixture of labor and knowledge and is of a higher level in value than a less
skilled laborer such as a janitor. In the same way a person who manages a
corporation worth billions of dollars and employing thousands of people is of
a higher level of value than that of a skilled laborer. But would it be
reasonable to say that his value is a thousand times as great as that of his
average employee? Supply and demand can lead to problematic results. For
instance, should a baseball player, however good, be paid more than the leader
of a country?

The capitalist economic system is based on the idea that value or prices
should be determined by a free market in which laws of supply and demand
freely operate. The problem is that laws of supply and demand often do not
operate freely for various reasons including manipulation of the markets and
for technical reasons. The socialist economic system is based on the idea
that prices should be determined by what seems fair but then the problem
becomes how is that to be determined?

History seems to teach that either an overregulated economy such as communist
systems or an unregulated economy such as laissez-faire do not work well. The
trick is to find a happy medium course.

From about 1970 to 2006 Merrill Lynch's investment banking and capital-markets
business grew from about 100 to about 20,000 people and their headcount grew
from 9,000 to about 70,000.

Their profit grew from less than $100 million to $7.5 billion and the
compensation to the managing partner went from slightly above $100,000 to $48
million, a 480 fold increase when profits only showed a 75 fold increase. One
can argue whether the managing partner could be worth $48 million a year.
Also, since the average income earned in 2010 in the United States was about
$41,000, one could also argue whether an economic system in which one person
can earn well over 1,000 times the average is equitable.

From about 1960 to about 2010, a period of 50 years the consumer price index
increased from 30 to 218, a 7 fold increase.
The average wage increased from about $4,000 to about $41,000, a 10 fold
increase.
The average price of a house increased from about $15,000 to about $210,000, a 14 fold increase.

An important aspect of prices such as new car prices to consider is how
much you get for the price. Its reasonable to say that today's car is twice as
good as a vehicle from the 1940's. Cars last longer, have more power, get
better fuel economy and are safer.

One example is a 1949 Lincoln Cosmopolitan convertible. The car cost $3,948 in
1949. It had a V8 engine that got 152 HP and 8 miles per gallon. There were no
airbags, no seatbelts and few modern features.

Today in 2008 you can get a Mazda Miata for $20,635. The Miata has 166 HP and
gets 22 MPG city/ 27 highway. It has front side airbags, anti-lock brakes, an
AM/FM CD player and remote entry as standard features.

The Miata will likely last twice as long as the Cosmopolitan. In the 1950's to
1970's a car would not be expected to last over 100,000 miles. But todays cars
should last for 150,000 to 200,000. The new cars are MUCH safer. If you look
at fatality rates per miles driven, from 1966 to 1996 the fatality rate per 1
million miles driven dropped from 5.5 to 1.7.

By every objective measure the Miata clearly performs better. It lasts twice
as long, it is much safer and it has better fuel efficiency.

In 1965 the average CEO made about 26 times the pay of the average worker in
his company and by 1980 this had increased to 40 times the pay of the average
worker in his company. In 2004 the average CEO's compensation had increased
to 500 times the pay of the average worker in his company.

Mostly during the Reagan administration the American worker's average hourly
wage increased from $15.91 per hour in 1979 to $16.63 per hour in 1989. By
1995 it had increased to $16.71 and when the economy was booming between 1995
and 2000 it rose to $18.33 per hour before falling again. So from 1979 to
2000 the average American's worker's wage increased only an average of 11.5
cents per hour per year with nearly all of that coming in the last five years
or the "boom" years of that period. And that includes all workers, even those
with college degrees.

For the more than 100 million workers or 72.1% of the workforce with no college
degrees the average hourly real wages were less in 2000 than they
were in 1979 and after 2000 wages slid further! This is in spite of
productivity increases during that period.

With 1992 as base year, productivity was at 82.2 in 1979. It grew to 94.2 by
1989 and 116.6 by the year 2000. By 2004 it had exploded to over 120. That's
nearly a 40% increase since Ronald Reagan took office about 25 years before!

So a 40% productivity gain led to stagnant or decreased wages for those
workers without college degrees, to modest wage increases for those with
college degrees and to huge compensation increases for CEOs. Their
compensation rose over 400% during the period and most of that increase
occurred in the late 1990s.

Put in real money terms, the median pay for an American CEO was $2,436,000 in
1989 and $10,775,000 by 2000.

The average American worker today earns about a third more than the average
worker in 13 other industrialized countries but the average CEO in America is
compensated about 3 times as much as the aveage CEO in those same 13
countries. No average CEO compensation in any of those 13 countries is even
half as much as the average American CEO earns. The average ratio of CEO
compensation to average worker's pay ranges from 10 to 1 in Japan and
Switzerland to 25 to 1 in the UK and Canada and 500 to 1 in the United States.

As one source has put it, "in 2000 a CEO earned more in one workday (there are
260 in a year) than what the average worker earned in 52 weeks. In 1965, by
contrast, it took a CEO two weeks to earn a worker's annual pay".

The top one percent of the population of the United States are now estimated
to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the
combined wealth of the bottom 95%.

Our economy produces tremendous wealth but it also produces tremendous
poverty. Sure, some people can be lazy, but when large numbers of hard
working people live in poverty and the middle class is shrinking, it is a
systemic, not an individual problem. There is plenty to go around, but it
doesn't adequately go around. It goes to the top, and leaves the masses to
fight over the crumbs. True, it has been this way through the ages, but that
doesn't mean we should be satisfied with such a system. I believe we can do
better.

Some doctors and lawyers and professional people, with incomes over a hundred
thousand dollars may feel "rich". They may have nicer homes and cars, and
they may have attitudes that separate them from the masses. But they still
must work for a living and are primarily consumers of their earnings.
Whether they recognize it or not, they actually have more in common with the
people at the bottom than they do with the people in the top 1/2%.
The bottom 99% has the votes. The top 1% has the money. Who controls the
government?

We recently went through an economic boom where the bottom 99% showed little
if any improvement in their condition while those in the top 1% showed huge
gains. Can this be considered "prosperity"? Do we really want to gear up our
national policies to repeat this performance?

In 2004 over 240,000 tax returns were filed with adjusted gross incomes of $1
million or more. In March 2006 Forbes reported 793 billionaires in the US
with combined net worth of $2.6 trillion. In March 2007 Forbes reported 946
billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $3.5 trillion. That is a 1-
year increase of 19% in the number of billionaires and an increase of 35% in
their net worth during a time of increasing poverty. Severe poverty is at its
highest point in three decades.

A single billionaire can get the undivided attention of any politician he
wants, any time he wants. If he doesn't get what he wants he can, in fact,
"fight city hall," the statehouse, and even the federal government.

The mainstream media has been bought up by people in the top 1%. The primary
channels for information and expressed opinion are controlled and filtered by
a small, powerful group whose interests are not representative of the majority
of Americans. Even when there is no direct political message the programming
is tailored to the perspectives and sensitivities of large corporations. The
business of media is to sell advertising. Programming is simply the hook to
hold an audience until the next commercial. Serious examination of ideas of
any kind is seen as counterproductive because it may alienate or bore part of
the potential audience. The result is nonstop sensationalistic binges of
an increasing number of popular celebrities. The growing media monopoly
dilutes and distorts the national dialog, and thereby destroys the basis for
democracy.

When taxes are cut, whose taxes are cut and whose programs are cut? What
kinds of taxes are being cut and what kinds of taxes (whether they are called
taxes or not) are being imposed? Sales tax and use fees tax primarily the
bottom 99%. The pre-Reagan progressive income tax drew more from the top 1%

The flat tax would shift the burden downscale even more. The sales pitch for
this shift usually focuses on "simplification." Simplification is unrelated
to the issue of who the money is coming from. You could have a simple
progressive tax just as easily as a simple flat tax. The proposal to eliminate
the income tax entirely would be disastrous. Those in the top 1% would escape
virtually all of their obligations and the burden of government would be born
almost entirely by the lower 99% both through increases in other forms of
taxation and reduction of services. The income tax originally taxed ONLY the
wealthiest. This is the direction tax reform needs to take if it is to be
truly considered "reform.".

There are two classes in this country. One class derives concentrated power
from its concentrated wealth. The other class has power only in numbers.
That power is effective only to the extent that it can be mobilized through
organization.

How Does Your Income “Stack Up”?

Picture your annual income as a stack of $100 bills.
Do you make $25,000? Your stack of $100 bills is 1 inch high.
Do you make $100,000? Your stack of $100 bills is 4 inches high.
Do you make $1 million? Your stack of $100 bills is 3.3 feet high.
Do you make $1 billion? Your stack of $100 bills is over ½ mile high!
The U.S. Income distribution is not a “Bell Curve”…it is an “L-Curve”!

The bottom 99% of the population measure their incomes in inches. The top 1%
measure their incomes as stacks of $100 bills feet or even miles high! The
total wealth of the few people in the top 1% equals the total wealth of the
rest of the population combined.

This raises many questions. Why does the wealth (which we all help produce) go
so disproportionately to the few at the top? Why, in a prosperous economy, is
there so much poverty? Why has the lion’s share of the growth in recent
economic booms, gone almost exclusively to those in the vertical spike while
wages have stagnated?

The top 1% are the vertical spike in the L curve while the bottom 99% are the
horizontal spike.

Politically speaking, this raises even more questions. Concentration of wealth
produces concentration of power that is fundamentally incompatible with
democracy. Why does our government give tax cuts to those on the vertical
spike that result in cuts in services for the rest of us? The horizontal spike
has the votes, but the vertical spike has the influence! They own the media.
Your TV set is their pipeline into your brain! They set the agenda and the
terms of debate. Furthermore, by the time you enter the voting booth all the
“serious” candidates have been filtered and pre-selected by their ability to
raise funds from those on the vertical spike. Those who can’t attract big
money are marginalized. The only way to make the government for the people is
to make it of the people and by the people. That means we, the people, must
wake up. We must wake up our neighbors! We must learn to talk to each other
directly. We must bypass the media culture and rebuild true community.
Democracy does not start in the voting booth. It starts by building a movement
at the grass roots level that values people over profits.

For more on the L-Curve and its implications, see: www.lcurve.org

Quote from an anonomous investment manager, January 2012.

"I think it's important to emphasize one of the dangers of wealth
concentration: irresponsibility about the wider economic consequences of their
actions by those at the top. Wall Street created the investment products that
produced gross economic imbalances and the 2008 credit crisis. It wasn't the
hard-working 99.5%. Average people could only destroy themselves financially,
not the economic system. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the
collapse was primarily due to the failure of complex mortgage derivatives, CDS
credit swaps, cheap Fed money, lax regulation, compromised ratings agencies,
government involvement in the mortgage market, the end of the Glass-Steagall
Act in 1999, and insufficient bank capital. Only Wall Street could put the
economy at risk and it had an excellent reason to do so: profit. It made huge
profits in the build-up to the credit crisis and huge profits when it sold
itself as "too big to fail" and received massive government and Federal
Reserve bailouts. Most of the serious economic damage the U.S. is struggling
with today was done by the top 0.1% and they benefited greatly from it."

"Not surprisingly, Wall Street and the top of corporate America are doing
extremely well as of June 2011. For example, in Q1 of 2011, America's top
corporations reported 31% profit growth and a 31% reduction in taxes, the
latter due to profit outsourcing to low tax rate countries. Somewhere around
40% of the profits in the S&P 500 come from overseas and stay overseas, with
about half of these 500 top corporations having their headquarters in tax
havens. If the corporations don't repatriate their profits, they pay no U.S.
taxes. The year 2010 was a record year for compensation on Wall Street, while
corporate CEO compensation rose by over 30%, most Americans struggled. In 2010
a dozen major companies, including GE, Verizon, Boeing, Wells Fargo, and Fed
Ex paid US tax rates between -0.7% and -9.2%. Production, employment, profits,
and taxes have all been outsourced. Major U.S. corporations are currently
lobbying to have another "tax-repatriation" window like that in 2004 where
they can bring back corporate profits at a 5.25% tax rate versus the usual 35%
US corporate tax rate. Ordinary working citizens with the lowest incomes are
taxed at 10%."

"The bottom line is this: A highly complex set of laws and exemptions from laws
and taxes has been put in place by those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S.
financial system. It allows them to protect and increase their wealth and
significantly affect the U.S. political and legislative processes. They have
real power and real wealth. Ordinary citizens in the bottom 99.9% are largely
not aware of these systems, do not understand how they work, are unlikely to
participate in them, and have little likelihood of entering the top 0.5%, much
less the top 0.1%. Moreover, those at the very top have no incentive
whatsoever for revealing or changing the rules."

For this complete article see:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

Other notes:

In the United States:

The top 1% of the population has 43% of the wealth.
The next 4% of the population has 29% of the wealth.
The next 15% of the population has 21% of the wealth.
and the bottom 80% of the population has 7% of the wealth.

From 1979 to 2007 the share of income in the United States increased for the
top 20% and decreased for the lower 80%. In 2009 the adjusted gross income
reported the the IRS by the taxpayer at the bottom of the top one percent of
taxpayers was about $344,000. If your adjusted gross income was more than
this you were in the top one percent. If it was less than this you were in
the bottom ninety nine percent. The net worth of the top 1% is $1.8 million or
above, the top 0.25% is $3.1 million, the top 0.10% is $5.5 million and the
top 0.01% or about 140,000 people is $24.4 million and above.

A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea
that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as
concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible
wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their
gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American
wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of
the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth
(refer back to Table 1 and Figure 1 in this document for a more detailed
breakdown of the numbers).

Even more striking, they did not come close on the amount of wealth held by
the bottom 40% of the population. It's a number I haven't even mentioned so
far, and it's shocking: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth
in the United States. Most people in the survey guessed the figure to be
between 8% and 10%, and two dozen academic economists got it wrong too, by
guessing about 2% -- seven times too high. Those surveyed did have it about
right for what the 20% in the middle have; it's at the top and the bottom that
they don't have any idea of what's going on.

Americans from all walks of life were also united in their vision of what the
"ideal" wealth distribution would be, which may come as an even bigger
surprise than their shared misinformation on the actual wealth distribution.
They said that the ideal wealth distribution would be one in which the top 20%
owned between 30 and 40 percent of the privately held wealth, which is a far
cry from the 85 percent that the top 20% actually own. They also said that the
bottom 40% -- that's 120 million Americans -- should have between 25% and 30%,
not the mere 8% to 10% they thought this group had, and far above the 0.3%
they actually had. In fact, there's no country in the world that has a wealth
distribution close to what Americans think is ideal when it comes to fairness.
So maybe Americans are much more egalitarian than most of them realize about
each other, at least in principle and before the rat race begins.

During the great recession from 2007 to 2009 Wall Street profits increased by
720%, The unemployment rate increased by 102% and Americans' home equity
decreased by 35%.

When the federal income tax began millionaire's (in 2010 dollars) tax rate was
1.6%. That increased as the tax was made more progressive to a high of 66.4%
in 1945. It decreased in 1965 under LBJ to 55.3%, in 1982, under Reagan, to
47.7%, to 36.4% during the first Bush administration and to 32.4% during the
second Bush administration.

During the economic expansion from 2002 to 2006, the top 1% of American
earners gained almost three quarters of total income growth. The remaining
99% of workers split the final 25%.

In the world the richest 20% have 82.7% of the income and the poorest 20% get
1.4% of the income.

In 2004 in the United States the top 1% owned 34.3% of the wealth of the
nation and the bottom 40% owned 0.2% of the wealth. That leaves 65.55% of the
wealth owned by the middle 59% of the population.

The total wealth of the United States in the fourth quarter of 2010 was about
$56.8 trillion. This was about 15.7% lower than the total wealth in December
2007 before the great recession. The population of the United States was just
over 300 million. That means the wealth of the average person (not family)
was about $189,000 or $756,000 for a family of four. If your or your family's
wealth wasn't that high then you were economically below average.

In 2004, the top 1% controlled 50.3% of the financial assets while the bottom
90% only held 14.4% of the total US financial assets. This data shows that
the top 25% of American society held on average a net wealth of $1,556,801
which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th
percentile.

We are animals, beings of great complexity, existing in a universe of the more
or less random application of energy or power. We are social animals which
means we tend to aggregate and interact with one another. Science is the
study of the universe and how it exists and how it exerts power over us.
Politics is the study of society, or relationships among ourselves, and how
power is distributed in society.

The universe exerts power over us whether it is physical, (we may be struck by
lightning or blown away or swallowed up in an earthquake), or biological, (we
may be killed or disabled by our fellow man or by a virus or by a bear) or
even mental, (we may think about these things or other things so much or be so
concerned about them that we may go mad.)

Society exerts power over us basically in three ways. One of these is
physical power. If I want something from you I can get it simply if I am
bigger than you or I have a bigger gun or I have a bigger army. One of these
is economic power. I can get something from you if I have something you want
and we can make a deal. For instance, if I own land and you don't and you
need to grow wheat to feed your family, I can let you use part of my land to
grow wheat in return for a portion of your crop or in return for you providing
me so many days of labor per year. One of these is charismatic power. I may
have influence over you due to my personality, meaning you like or love me or
believe in me as a leader, or due to my ability to con you. I may be able
to convince you that if you give me something I want I can foretell your
future or protect you from evil.

Because we are social animals we have a need to aggregate into groups;
families, tribes and other social organizations. We do this for purposes such
as protection and power and reproduction and recreation. When we congregate
then we form a social hierarchy meaning that for various reasons some rise to
the top and others fall to the bottom. These reasons usually involve, once
again, physical attributes, economic wealth, or charismatic attributes. Those
at the top of society tend to be stronger, better looking, smarter, and
richer. Now you might want to argue whether they are at the top of the social
hierarchy for these reasons or whether we consider them stronger, better
looking, smarter and richer because they are at the top of the heap.
Sometimes the emperor has no clothes.

"The poor are with you always." This simply means that there will always be a
relative few at the top and a greater number nearer the bottom rungs of the
societal ladder.

Power and its benefits tends to rise to the top classes of society to the
detriment and impoverishment of the lower classes. The task of politics is to
limit this tendency because if the effects become too extreme the result will
be an uprising by the lower classes which may cause a revolution and a
rearrangement of the social hierarchy.

The two universal sources of political power are physical and economic and in
the so called "Western world" there is also the rise of religious power. So
the task of politics becomes to put limits on government, wealth and religion.
The very worst situation is when these three reins of power are all held by
one small group and this is what tends to happen in the absence of offsetting
forces.

The "divine right of Kings" or political power has historically been limited
by uprisings which led to the "Magna Carta" and to the rise of various forms
of democracy. There have been various efforts to limit economic power usually
in terms of socialism or communism. These have been mostly unsuccessful.
Religious power has been limited in extreme cases by outright banning of
religion by governments and in other cases by attempts to legislate religious
freedom.

In the twentieth century there was an otherwise unusual phenomena economically
known as the rise of the "middle class". This meant that various progressive
government policies led to a bulge in a middle economic class so that the
class heirarcy rather than being a straight pyramid had a bulge in the middle.
However, by the turn of the millenium this bulge began to dissipate.

Power is not a zero sum game because overall economic power tends to increase
due to the labors and increased efficiency and technological innovations of a
growing population. In this situation the problem is not only how to
equitably distribute existing wealth but how to distribute new wealth being
created. One method used by those in power is to limit the knowledge of the
lower classes as to how much wealth is increasing so that small amounts of
incremental wealth can be distributed to lower economic classes while the
lion's share is retained by the upper classes.

Historically also the size of political units has increased from a family to a
tribe to a kingdom to an empire to a country and some see this tendency to
eventually result in a world government. Some fear this and some think it
would limit conflict.

It is said that an alien race from another planet discovered Earth and it was
reported that the earthlings had developed nuclear weapons. The question then
asked was, "Are the earthlings then intelligent and a threat to us?" The
answer was, "No, because they are pointing the weapons at themselves!"

Why is the history of mankind basically a story of conflict and war?

Man has evolved into a social species meaning that the existence of an
individual is to a large extent defined by social relationships with others.
This is expressed mainly by a desire of each of us to congregate with others
as much as possible like ourselves. We feel closer to other animals like
horses and dogs which are more like us than we do to others more unlike
ourselves such as spiders and snakes.

Within our species we tend to congregate with those who are a similar color,
physical type, culture and background as ourselves. Conversely we feel
suspicion or fear or superiority about those unlike ourselves and our group.

The roots of conflict are usually in greed or ego or religion or fear or some
combination of these. We tend to go to war or fight with others who are not
of our group because we fear them or we want to take what they have or we want
to exert power over them or we want to force them to be more like us.

Any conflict is started by the aggressor against a defender who is thought to
be weaker and thus susceptible to aggression.

For instance the Germans and the Japanese started World War II due to ego and
greed. They felt that their culture was superior and therefore it was their
destiny to control other cultures and appropriate what these cultures had and
destroy those people and those parts of other cultures which were unlike
themselves.

The Crusades and the Thirty Years War and the "troubles" in Ireland and many
other wars were wars over religion in which one culture tries to impose their
beliefs on others or, if that is not possible, to destroy the others.

The Korean and the Vietnam wars were entered by the United States due to fear
of communism which was an economic system unlike our own.

The Gulf War was started by Saddam Hussein due to greed and ego because of his
desire to dominate that part of the world and world oil supplies. It was
entered by the United States and other countries due to fear that he would do
just that and thus control essential energy prices.

The war in Afghanistan was started by the United States due to fear of
terrorists and as a defending response to attacks by terrorists.

The Iraq war was started by the United States due to ego and greed.

Business has always been able to profit from wars. After the Second World War
and the Vietnam War the upper one percent of society in terms of wealth
realized that war was a very convenient vehicle to use as an excuse to
transfer even more wealth from the lower 99% to the upper 1%. This was used
to great effect during the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan in which a
complicit government contracted much of the support of the war to private
businesses such as Halliburton and others thus transferring billions of
dollars of taxpayer's money to the very rich.

So at this point another reason for war is to use war as a vehicle to transfer
wealth.

The purpose of government is to control power and to exercise power for the following purposes:

To protect the society from other nations and internally from violence among its citizens and to enter into treaties with other nations.

To provide a set of rules (laws) and a system of administering justice to maintain the social order.

To promote the general welfare and well being of its citizens including providing those services essential for community life and for protecting public health and safety as well as a national infrastructure and protection of the environment.

To make economic decisions which will promote the general economy and the
creation of goods and services for its people and the equitable distribution
of the general wealth.

To protect the life, liberty, and rights of all its citizens.

Signs of the failure of government would include the following:

There is air available but some people suffocate because they are not
allowed access.

There is water available but some people die or become dehydrated because
they are not allowed access.

There is food available but some people die or are malnourished because
they are not allowed access.

There is shelter available but some people are homeless.

There is health care available but some people die or are in ill health
because they are not allowed access.

There is energy available but some people freeze to death or live in
conditions of extreme heat or cold because they are not allowed access.

There is knowledge available but some people are uneducated because they
are not allowed access.

Some people are ostracized or denied basic freedoms without having
committed acts to harm others to justify this.

According to Buddhist philosophy a leader needs three interconnected attributes
to lead effectively. These are Strength, Knowledge and Compassion. If any of
the three are missing the leader cannot be a good leader. The four pillars of
a happy life are the economy, the government, the culture and the environment.

In the late nineteenth century after Darwin published "The Origin of Species"
it was believed that evolution would benefit from increased competition. The
capitalist free market economy favored individual resourcefulness and was
therefore considered to be good. Social welfare was seen as helping the sickly
and feebleminded to survive and multiply, thereby working against natural
selection and decreasing the future survivability of the entire species.

My argument against this train of thought is as follows:

Men develop a social hierarchy in which some men rise to the top in wealth and
power. For each person at or near the top of society it is required that
there be a greater number of men lower in the hierarchy to support him and
provide him his wealth and power. One man requires a number of servants. A
King requires an army. A president of a company requires many workers.

Although the man at the top may be richer and more powerful than any below
him, he is not richer or more powerful than all of the lower classes
together. So, for a society to endure, there must be a feeling of some type of
fairness and equality in the society. Otherwise, not only will the lower
classes refuse to support the upper classes but they may openly rebel. If
this happens the lower classes will probably be victorious and the social
order will be upset and replaced by a new order.

Since this process leads to continuous anarchy and upheaval it is ultimately
detrimental to all involved. For this reason men have discovered that there
must be a social contract that can be agreed on by all or, at least by the
great majority, as to rules of behavior. Since all must enter into this social
contract then all the members of the society become equal in terms of forming
such a contract. This means that any government resulting from such a
contract must provide for, not only the rich and upper classes but also, the
poorer and disadvantaged in society. Otherwise there can be no social
contract agreed to by all.

History shows that this has advantages for not only the weak but also for the
powerful in society because this contract helps the powerful to secure their
position. Without such a contract (government) the powerful are in danger at
any time of losing their position and becoming a part of the underclass.

Individuals and institutions who have power over others are a threat to the
life and liberty of the less powerful. However, for the cooperative effort
necessary for the survival and enrichment of the society, each must give up
some liberty in exchange for the protection and efficiency of the many. This
makes the institution of the many more powerful than the individual and thus
is a threat to the individual.

This is the essence of the conservative versus the liberal argument.

The liberal says, "We need the power of the many."

The conservative says, "We treasure the liberty of the individual."

The trick is to make a government of laws to protect the society and yet to
protect the liberty of the individual. The United States Constitution
attempts to set up the government of laws but the Bill of Rights exists to
protect the liberty of the individual.

The liberal sees government as an institution for the common good.

The libertarian sees government as an institution which seeks to tax,
regulate, control, enslave, conscript, or kill the individual.

The capitalist conservative sees government as an instrument to control the
masses to maintain order and the integrity of the social and economic
structure. The goal is to protect the lifestyle and power of the upper
classes at the expense of the less powerful in the lower classes.

The social conservative sees government as an agency to maintain the moral
order and to promote conformity to what is usually a defined set of moral or
religious beliefs. As such the social conservative is almost the exact
opposite of the libertarian.

During human evolution this problem was approached by the development of a
culture based on sharing for the common good which also ostracized those who
tried to gain control of the society through power or through hoarding goods.
In other words, honor those who shared and cared for others and shun those who
were selfish or self serving. This culture also promoted conformity.

After the development of agriculture and cities and the idea of the ownership
of property these cultural memes were weakened. This led to the rise of
capitalism and the idea of individual liberty from conformity to the memes of
the larger society thus causing the creation of social and economic classes
and also leading to more progress and diversity through individual innovation
and imagination.

Since capitalism arose in the world, workers have been banding together; at
first locally in small groups, but increasingly workers realized that the
greater the strength of workers' organization, the better able workers are to
challenge capitalism. There is a history of efforts of organizing workers
regardless of race, ethnicity, gender - or border, the effort to organise and
create collaboration and co-operation between workers the world over in order
to win the world for those who make it run.

In "Debtor Nation: The History of America in Red Ink", Louis Hyman, Ph.D. '07,
reconstructs the history of personal debt in modern America.

The result of almost a century of financial innovation, intermittent
government policymaking, and increased real borrowing by households is our
current economy-critically dependent on credit in a volatile world. "The
relative danger of relying on consumer credit to drive the economy," Hyman
observes, "remains a macroeconomic puzzle to be solved." Will we invest the
profits from borrowing productively to create jobs and sustainable purchasing
power on the part of most households? Or will we distribute economic returns
to a small number of Americans at the top of the food chain and then lend
those profits to everyone else in the form of credit-card debt and mortgage-
backed securities? "American capitalism," he concludes, "is America, and we
can choose together to submit to it, or rise to its challenges, making what we
will of its possibilities."

Jonathan Levy explains the emerging world of capitalism and risk in "Freaks of
Fortune - The Emerging World of Capitalism and Risk in America"

Focusing on the hopes and anxieties of ordinary people, Jonathan Levy shows
how risk developed through the extraordinary growth of new financial
institutions—insurance corporations, savings banks, mortgage-backed securities
markets, commodities futures markets, and securities markets—while posing
inescapable moral questions. For at the heart of risk's rise was a new vision
of freedom. To be a free individual, whether an emancipated slave, a plains
farmer, or a Wall Street financier, was to take, assume, and manage one's own
personal risk. Yet this often meant offloading that same risk onto a series of
new financial institutions, which together have only recently acquired the
name "financial services industry." Levy traces the fate of a new vision of
personal freedom, as it unfolded in the new economic reality created by the
American financial system.

Early in the last decade, an Ayn Rand disciple named Alan Greenspan, who had
been trusted with the U.S. government's powers for regulating the financial
economy, stated his faith in the ability of that economy to maintain its own
stability: "Recent regulatory reform coupled with innovative technologies has
spawned rapidly growing markets for, among other products, asset-backed
securities, collateral loan obligations, and credit derivative default swaps.
These increasingly complex financial instruments have contributed, especially
over the recent stressful period, to the development of a far more flexible,
efficient, and hence resilient financial system than existed just a quarter-
century ago."

At the beginning of this decade, in the wake of the failure of Greenspan's
faith to prevent the eclipse of one economic order of things, Robert Solow,
another towering figure in the economics profession, reflected on Greenspan's
credo and voiced his suspicion that the financialization of the U.S. economy
over the last quarter-century created not "real," but fictitious wealth:
"Flexible maybe, resilient apparently not, but how about efficient? How much
do all those exotic securities, and the institutions that create them, buy
them, and sell them, actually contribute to the ‘real' economy that provides
us with goods and services, now and for the future?"

When collective euphoria, financial innovation, and astonishing disproportions
of power mix together, what bubbles into being is anything but mere vapor. In
such financial exchanges we see not only the generation and transfer of real
wealth - that is, real effects in the social and political world - but also
that such transfers can incorporate great violence and disruption for some as
the causes of great profit for others.

"Power: A Radical View" by Steven Lukes

Power has three faces

This is essential reading for those interested in the dynamics of power
relations and, in particular, how power works to either enhance or undermine
democratic participation in society. Over the course of the three essays that
constitute the second edition of this book, Lukes develops an idea of power in
three dimensions. In the first dimension, power is clearly visible in
decision-making processes, where A exercises power over B when A's policy
preferences, reflecting A's subjective interests, prevail over B's. Here,
power is discernible only where a conflict of interests informs open debate
over a public issue. This conflict gives rise to divergent policy preferences
competing for public acceptance and political validation.

However, if one were to confine the study of power to its effects in the first
dimension, that is, to the outcomes of decision-making processes, one misses
other aspects of power detected in the biases of non-decision-making. Non-
decision-making power is the power to keep certain issues off the table: it is
the power to deny certain individuals or groups access to decision-making
processes, and thus to prevent certain grievances from being translated into
public issues. While decision-making power, as seen in the first dimension,
may be widely distributed among various groups and individuals who alternately
succeed in promoting their interests, there may be at the same time unity
among these otherwise conflicting interests in preventing certain segments of
the population from contributing to the discussion. The second dimension of
power consists in this ability to control the agenda, to decide what gets
decided--and what doesn't. Here, as in power's first dimension, power is again
seen in a conflict situation, only the conflict is now covert, rendered
invisible by non-decision-making power.

The third dimension of power incorporates and transcends power's first and
second faces. Those who study three-dimensional power recognize not only power
as it is exercised in the first and second dimensions but also power where it
need not be so exercised. This occurs in the apparent absence of conflict,
where power can be seen as the capacity to secure compliance to domination and
thereby prevent conflicts or grievances from arising in the first place.

The third face of power is not directly visible, because the securing of
willing compliance to domination does not require an explicit exercise of
power. However, the mechanisms of such power (domination) are empirically
accessible. They may involve the furthering of the material interests of the
dominated within certain limits, as part of a class compromise, or they may
involve the inculcation of ideologies that bring the dominated to accept the
power structure of society as the "natural order of things" or as being
divinely established. In both cases, which are not mutually exclusive, the
"true interests" of the dominated are obscured; and the dominated are misled
to act contrary to their real interests, chief among them being, one may
argue, an interest in NOT being dominated and in having more freedom to live
according to "the dictates of one's own nature and judgment."

Of course, as Lukes admits, "true interests" is a contested term. There
doesn't seem to be a rigid set of objective interests with which everyone can
readily identify. Rather than supplying a universal answer to the question of
true interests, Lukes responds to this difficulty by providing a set of
guidelines for identifying people's interests. The answer, Lukes argues,
always depends on three things: the purpose of one's inquiry, one's
theoretical framework, and the methods used.

Lukes also recognizes another difficulty in discussing the idea of true
interests: It almost always leads to the notion of "false consciousness."
False consciousness is a controversial idea, because it is often assumed to
have condescending, elitist connotations. However, Lukes regards false
consciousness as simply the result of being misled, many instances of which
throughout history can be easily identified without much controversy. The
mechanisms of false consciousness include censorship, disinformation, and "the
promotion and sustenance of all kinds of failures of rationality and illusory
thinking, among them the `naturalization' of what could be otherwise and the
misrecognition of the sources of desire and belief" (p.149).

The third face of power, as developed by Lukes, expands the conceptual
territory of power and reorients its study to include instances of power that
escape the attention of those who conceive of power too narrowly, thereby
limiting their observations to the realm of political participation. With this
book, Lukes makes a vital contribution to the sociological study of power by
revealing it as "capacity," and by showing how power works most effectively
(and insidiously) when it is hidden.

Definitions:

Who Holds Power

Anarchy

a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by
the absence of governmental authority.

One Ruler

One person or a small group hold power

Dictatorship

a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield
absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).

Monarchy

a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a
monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by
hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a
sovereign - such as a king, queen, or prince - with constitutionally limited
authority.

Oligarchy

a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals
whose authority generally is based on wealth or power.

Theocracy

a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil
ruler, but the Deity's laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities
(bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.

Totalitarian

a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by
controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the
attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population.

Democracy

Power is held by the people governed.

Absolute Democracy

a form of government where all laws are passed by a direct vote of the people.

Representative Democracy

a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the
people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of
representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

How is the Economy Structured

Communist

a system of government in which the state plans and controls the
economy and a single - often authoritarian - party holds power; state controls
are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital
while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all
goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).

Socialist

a government in which the means of planning, producing, and
distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically
seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Capitalist

a government in which the means of planning, producing, and
distributing goods is controlled by the free market.

Cooperative

Companies providing basic services are owned by those using
those services. Exists within a capitalist system.

Government by Structure

Commonwealth

a nation, state, or other political entity founded on law and
united by a compact of the people for the common good.

Confederacy (Confederation)

a union by compact or treaty between states,
provinces, or territories, that creates a central government with limited
powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters
except those delegated to the central government.

Federal (Federation)

a form of government in which sovereign power is
formally divided - usually by means of a constitution - between a central
authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies, or provinces)
so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs
from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly
upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.

Constitutional

a government by or operating under an authoritative document
(constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles
that determines the nature, functions, and limits of that government and in
which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing
constitution.

Parliamentary government (Cabinet-Parliamentary government)

a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its
leader - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor) are nominated to their
positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it;
this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament
(legislature) by means of a no confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet
may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.

Presidential

a system of government where the executive branch exists
separately from a legislature (to which it is generally not accountable).

Fact, Fiction, and Wishes about the Government of the United States

We have a Commonwealth that is a constitutional presidential federation with a
capitalist economic system governed by an oligarchy.

We think we have a Commonwealth that is a constitutional presidential federation with a
capitalist economic system governed by a representative democracy.

We probably should have a Commonwealth that is a constitutional parliamentary
federation with a cooperative capitalist economic system governed by a
representative democracy.

People believe that we have a representative democracy because we are taught
this in school and we are taught to be patriotic which is defined as
supporting the present power structure and believing what we have been told.

If we really had a representative democracy we would be governed by elected
representatives who were our peers, people who had families and jobs and
careers just like the rest of us and who were elected for a short period of
their lives to help govern us. Instead government is by a class of career
politicians who are mostly millionaires or multi-millionaires.

After the Civil War a class of people developed who were rich enough to
influence and buy government by financing politicians. They were called
"Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons" or such titles. They were mainly in
the railroad and steel and finance and later in the oil sectors of the
economy. They were driven by greed and ego and they accumulated wealth and
power and mismanaged the economy until they caused the great depression of
the 1930s after smaller warning depressions in the late 19th century. After
that debacle their power was reined in somewhat by populist government and by
acts like the progressive income tax and the inheritance tax and the social
security act.

After World War II the same thing began to happen again and escalated during
and after the Reagan Administration. This time it was banking and insurance
and energy and defense contractors and pharmaceuticals among others. This
time the economic collapse occurred in 2008.

The reason this occurs is because we have a government based not on the votes
of people in a democracy but on the influence of money in buying those votes
and thus in controlling government. The cure for this condition lies in
setting up a system of limiting politicians to one term in office and
preventing monetary influence by outlawing influence, not only in gifts and
bribes while running for office or while in office but also outlawing any
payments to politicians or employment of politicians after they leave office.
This would mean that they would have to be paid a salary by the taxpayers for
the rest of their lives after they left office. It would also mean that their
campaigns for office would have to be financed solely by the public once they
had collected a sufficient number of voter's signatures on a petition to
qualify them as viable candidates.

The problem with implementing this system, of course, is that this change
would have to get the support of politicians who are now the same ones
benefiting from the present system. That is very unlikely.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed. The cost of one modern heavy bomber
is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric
power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully
equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a
single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single
destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

People in the world can be thought of as the top 1% of 1% in terms of wealth
and power who control the distribution of wealth and power and the 1% who
mostly benefit from that arrangement and the 99% who are exploited to transfer
wealth and power to the oligarchy. The 99% are allowed to keep some wealth
and are taught to believe that they have a large portion of all the wealth and
power so that they will be satisfied enough with the existing structure that
they will not revolt and upset the apple cart. The problem is that the
oligarchy, due to ego and greed, tends to want to take even more for
themselves and further impoverish the 99% and sometimes they overstep and the
99% begin to see that the emperor has no clothes. This can lead to an upset
of the social order.

As far as the universe is concerned the objective is to decrease entropy, so
as long as complexity is maintained and increased in total and complex
physical entities, and mental and social structures exist and are reproduced
everything is fine. It matters not whether there is a slave class and a
ruling class or an even distribution of complexity. It is the sum of
complexity that counts. You could argue, of course, that a ruling class is
more complex than a uniform distribution and therefore favored by the
existence of the universe. That is a question I will leave for later.

The question then becomes, what determines which individuals are to be in the
oligarchy and which are to be in the exploited classes. One obvious
determinant is DNA or inheritance. So position can be attained due to an
accident of birth. Some are born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Some
are able due to a combination of luck and skill, usually intelligence but
sometimes just hard work, to cross class lines and reach the upper strata.
The fiction is that this route is available to all. Although it is available,
very very few have even the remotest chance of attaining it. The lower 99%
probably think their chance of changing economic classes is about 10% when it
is actually an insignificant chance. Of course that same mindset is what
makes lotteries work. They also think that tripling or quadrupling their
annual income or their net worth will put them in the ruling class. It won't
and they don't realise this because they have no conception of how large the
wealth and influence of the top 1% of the top 1% actually is.

The Oligarchy that controls the government and the wealth of the United States
is not a conspiracy as many argue. It's right out in the open. It's just a
collection of people in business and politics and the military and the media
who recognize that their interests are better served by cooperation than they
would be by competition. It's just as the Captains of Industry at the end of
the 19th century found that price fixing and monopolies made them more money
than competition did. Most of the people who are part of the Oligarchy don't
even realize it exists. They think that they are just a bunch of smart people
making decisions that are the best for the country because they know that what
is in their best interests is also in the best interest of the country. That
is because, as far as they are concerned, they are the country.

The Republicans and the Democrats often disagree about what is in the best
interests of the country but their policies always tend to preserve the status
quo. There hasn't been a federal law in the last sixty years that decreased
either the government's or big corporations' power and influence.

Problems with Democracy

Voting for and by dummies.

The cure for this problem could be a requirement to pass a civics class at
the high school level to enable voting. An argument against this is that it
is unfair to apply laws passed by elected representatives to someone not
allowed to vote for those representatives. Click
here for a video of dummies.

Professional politicians pursuing their own self interest.

The cure for this problem could be term limits and government financing of
elections and outlawing other payments to politicians, so that a class of
professional politicians did not develop.
Click here for a video of self interest.

Everybody wants a free lunch.

Hopefully solving the first two problems would cure this problem also.
Everyone would still want a free lunch but politicians would not feel so much
pressure to give it to them.

A citizen in a society has an obligation to do his part to support his
government and his fellow man.

The amount of support expected from him should be in proportion to his
ability to pay based on both income and wealth.

This obligation should be graduated so that those most fortunate pay a
higher rate than those less fortunate. (Yes, this does mean a redistribution
of wealth so that huge wealth and income differentials in society are reduced.)

The payment structure should be fair and uniform and simple, easily
understood by all.

Everyone is entitled to enough money to support themselves and their
family or household without any tax obligation.

Here is a proposed structure for a tax on income and wealth.

The legislature would set a tax table and a rate for income deficiency and a
rate for excess income.

Income would be defined in relation to living allowance.

Living allowance would be set based on the size of the household and the
average cost of living in the area in which the household resided.

The obligation thus determined would be paid by a combination of taxes paid to
the government and contributions to licensed non-profits or charities of the
taxpayer's choice as long as the taxpayer did not receive any payments or
other indirect benefits from the non-profits to which he contributed. The tax
rate would be set by the government and any obligation above this not
contributed to charity would also be paid to the government.

Example:

My household consists of myself, my wife, one child and a live-in mother-in-
law. We live in Podunk which is a community of slightly below average costs
of living.

My living allowance is set by a formula based on those facts although, if I
can document unusual circumstances, I can appeal that determination to a tax
board. This living allowance would be based on average middle class living,
neither living in poverty or luxury.

All medical expenses would be provided by a government medical program
including full payment for preventative, diagnostic and treatment services as
approved by a medical board set up for that purpose.

Suppose my total household income including rent, wages, interest, dividends
and capital gains for the year were below my living allowance, say $35,000.

I would be eligible for a government income deficiency payment which might be
90% (set by govt.) of my living allowance reduced by 60% (set by govt.) of my
income.

So 90% of 46,680 living allowance is $42,012. 60% of 35,000 is $21,000.
So the income deficiency payment I would receive would be 42,012-21,000=21,012

So I would have 35,000 income plus 21,012 deficiency payment or $56,012 to
live on.

If I did not work at all and had no income my deficiency payment would be
42,012 which is 90% of my living allowance.

Suppose my income for the year were $60,000 and the tax table was:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

& up 95%

60,000 income divided by $46,680 is 1.28. Rounding upward puts me in
tax tier 2 which means I would pay 10% of my excess.

My excess is $60,000 less $46,680 which is $13,320 and 10% of this is $1,332.
If the tax rate set by government was 40% then I would pay 40% of this $1,332
or $532.80 in taxes and the rest of it, $1,332-532.80, or $799.20 as a donation
to the licensed non-profit of my choice.

So I would have $60,000 less 1,332 or $58,668 to live on. If I could live on
$48,668 and save $10,000 per year then in ten years I would have $100,000 in
savings.

If my income were $120,000 then I would be in tax tier 3. 120,000 divided by
$46,680 is 2.57 which rounds up to 3.

So I would pay 10% of my tier 2 excess of $46,680 or $4,668 plus 20% of my
excess above that which is 120,000-2 X 46,680 or $26,640. 20% is $5,328.

My total obligation is thus $4,668 plus 5,328 or $9,996. 40% of this or
$3,998.40 would go toward taxes and the rest or $5,997.60 would be donations.

So I would have $120,000 less 9,996 or $110,004 to live on.

If my income were $1,000,000 my obligation would be
0% of 46,680 = 0
10% of 46,680 = 4,668
20% of 46,680 = 9,336
30% of 46,680 = 14,004
40% of 46,680 = 18,672
50% of 46,680 = 23,340
60% of 46,680 = 28,008
70% of 46,680 = 32,676
80% of 46,680 = 37,344
90% of 46,680 = 42,012
95% of the remaining 533,320 of income = 506,654
total $716,714 of which 40% or $286,686 would be tax obligation
and $430,028 would be donated.
leaving me $283,286 to live on.

If I lived on 83,286 per year and saved $200,000 each year then in ten years
my savings or investments would amount to $2,000,000.

According to David Altman, in 1992, the top tenth of the population controlled
20 times the wealth controlled by the bottom half. By 2010, it was 65 times.

So, the total obligation would be increased for the wealthy. Wealth would
cause an increase in total obligation graduated by a table set by living
allowance also. Perhaps a table like this:

if total wealth was:
up to 20 times living allowance - no obligation increase
up to 40 times living allowance - obligation increase of 1% of total wealth
up to 80 times living allowance - obligation increase of 2% of total wealth
up to 160 times living allowance - obligation increase of 4% of total wealth
up to 320 times living allowance - obligation increase of 8% of total wealth
up to 640 times living allowance - obligation increase of 16% of total wealth
above 640 times living allowance - obligation increase of 32% of total wealth

So if my total wealth were above about 30 million dollars with the living
allowance of $46,640 as in the example above I would owe 32% or about 10
million dollars additional each year in taxes and charitable donations.

Due to the government medical program and the income deficiency payments no
Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security would be needed so there would be no
payroll taxes or sales or corporate or other taxes including no property taxes
or estate or inheritance taxes because those would be covered through the
wealth tax.

To cover local and state taxes the tax obligation rate could be increased for
those so that the structure might be:
30% of excess income obligation for federal tax
20% of excess income obligation for state tax
10% of excess income obligation for local tax
leaving
40% of excess income obligation for donations

or whatever breakdown made sense to federal, state and local governing bodies.

It is my hope that such a tax structure would provide all citizens a decent
standard of living, encourage workers to work and entrepreneurs to manage, and
be fair to everyone while providing resources for government, charities and
other non-profit organizations.

Everything would be based on the cost of living allowance which would be set
by a local government tax board. The federal, state and local legislative
bodies would then set a tax rate table and:

A rate structure for income deficiency payments such as in the example
above - 90% of living allowance less 60% of income.

A tax rate for excess income obligation as in the 40% rate in the example above.

A multiplier of living allowance to set a fixed wealth allowance as in the
multiplier of 50 in the example above.

An excess wealth tax rate as in the example above.

Income is defined as all revenues received less business expenses spent to
receive that revenue. Wealth is defined as the value of all assets owned less
liabilities.

Tax Rates and Economic Policy

Historical federal marginal tax rates for income for the lowest and highest
income earners in the US.

In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($10 million
2007 dollars) and a total of $28.3 million was collected.

During World War I, the top rate rose to 77% and the income threshold to
be in this top bracket increased to $1,000,000 ($16 million 2007 dollars).

Under Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, top tax rates were reduced in
1921, 1924, 1926, and 1928. Mellon argued that lower rates would spur economic
growth. By 1928, the top rate was scaled down to 24% and the income threshold
for paying this rate fell to $100,000 ($1 million 2007 dollars).

Andrew Mellon's plan had four main points:

Cut the top income tax rate from 77 to 24 percent - predicting that large
fortunes would be put back into the economy.

Cut taxes on low incomes from 4 to 1/2 percent - tax policy "must lessen,
so far as possible, the burden of taxation on those least able to bear it."

Reduce the Federal Estate tax - large income taxes tempted the wealthy to
shift their fortunes into tax-exempt shelters.

Efficiency in government - lower tax rates meant few tax returns to
process by few government workers.

Mellon also championed preferential treatment for "earned" income relative to
"unearned" income. As he argued in his 1924 book, Taxation: The People's
Business

The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from
investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and
limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it;
in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of
during a man’s life and it descends to his heirs. Surely we can afford to make
a distinction between the people whose only capital is their mettle and
physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such
a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an
added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few
productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity
is at an end.

Mellon's economic policies, meant to strengthen the economy, did not prevent
the great depression.

The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented by
the British economist John Maynard Keynes in his book, The General Theory of
Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936, during the Great
Depression.

Prior to Keynes, a situation in which aggregate demand for goods and services
did not meet supply was referred to by classical economists as a general glut,
although there was disagreement among them as to whether a general glut was
possible. Keynes argued that when a glut occurred, it was the over-reaction of
producers and the laying off of workers that led to a fall in demand and
perpetuated the problem. Keynesians therefore advocate an active stabilization
policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among
the most serious of economic problems. According to the theory, government
spending can be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic
activity, reducing unemployment and deflation.

Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to stimulate the
economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches:

A reduction in interest rates (monetary policy), and

Government investment in infrastructure (fiscal policy).

By reducing the interest rate at which the central bank lends money to
commercial banks, the government sends a signal to commercial banks that they
should do the same for their customers.

Investment by government in infrastructure injects income into the economy by
creating business opportunity, employment and demand and reversing the effects
of the aforementioned imbalance. Governments source the funding for this
expenditure by borrowing funds from the economy through the issue of
government bonds, and because government spending exceeds the amount of tax
income that the government receives, this creates a fiscal deficit.

Keynes thought that the resulting deficit could be corrected during good
economic times both due to growth in the economy increasing tax revenue and by
raising tax rates to build up a slight government income surplus which would
be needed for increased spending during the next downturn in the economy.

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose
from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above
$5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars). During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was
its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.

The highest marginal tax rate for individuals for U.S. federal income tax
purposes for tax years 1952 and 1953 was 92%.

Since 1964, the threshold for paying top income tax rate has generally
been between $200,000 and $400,000. The one exception is the period from
1982–1992 when the top income tax brackets were removed and incomes above
around $100,000 (varies by year) paid the top rate. From 1981 until 1986 the
top marginal rate was lowered to 50%. From 1988–1990, the threshold for paying
the top rate was even lower, with incomes above $29,750 to $32,450 ($51,000 in
2007 dollars) paying the top rate of 28% in those years.

Top tax rates were increased in 1992 and 1994, culminating in a 39.6% top
individual rate applicable to all classes of income.

Top individual tax rates were lowered in 2004 to 35% and tax rates on
dividends and capital gains lowered to 15%, with the Bush administration
claiming lower rates would spur economic growth.

Bush's economic policies, meant to strengthen the economy, did not prevent
the great recession of 2008.

Based on the summary of federal tax income data in 2009, with a tax rate
of 35%, the top 1% covered 36.7% of the nation's income taxes.

In 2012, President Obama has announced that he plans to raise the two top
tax rates from 35% to 39.6% and from 33% to 36%.

Federal and state income tax rates have varied widely since 1913. For example,
in 1954, the federal income tax was based on layers of 24 income brackets at
tax rates ranging from 20% to 91% (for a chart, see Internal Revenue Code of
1954). Overall effective Federal tax rates on the top 0.01 percent of earners
have declined from about 70% in 1960 to about 35% in 2005, while effective
rates for the middle class have remained constant over the same period.

According to the IRS, the top 1% of income earners for 2008 paid 38% of
income tax revenue, while earning 20% of the income reported.

The top 5% of income earners paid 59% of the total income tax revenue, while
earning 35% of the income reported. The top 10% paid 70%, earning 46% and
the top 25% paid 86%, earning 67%. The top 50% paid 97%, earning 87% and
leaving the bottom 50% paying 3% of the taxes collected and earning 13% of the
income reported.

What we Believe and Why we Believe It

People have a set of beliefs that they begin to develop early in life. These beliefs are usually not based on fact or experiment or empirical evidence though some of them are. Some examples are:

A hot stove is not to be touched.

This is usually based on empirical evidence.

God exists and God is great.

This is based on a set of beliefs due to influence by others. There is no proof.

The USA is the best nation and it is a representive democracy.

We believe this because we are told this. Best requires a basis for comparison. And the United States is actually an oligarchy not a representative democracy.

The government spends too much.

We believe this because this
is what we are told although the statement itself makes no sense unless you
have a determined structure of economic and political beliefs that tells you
how much the government should spend and unless you know how much it actually
does spend for comparison.

We have freedom in this country.

That requires a definition of freedom. The statement is not absolutely
true. It is partially true. Of course it is also partially true in
all countries. The real question is, to what degree is it true.

If you question the established order you are unpatriotic.

If patriotism is defined as accepting and defending the established order
then that is true. If that is the case do you want to be patriotic?

One should help the poor and donate to the church and to charity.

Why?

It is wrong to burn the flag.

Why?

It is wrong to kill.

Almost nobody actually believes this but many think they do.

History tells us what happened in the past.

Not really. It tells one perspective of that story. That perspective may or may not have much truth to it. Truth is relative anyway.

Politicians lie.

That is true. So does everyone else.

Many Christians believe people should pray in public.

They also
believe they are followers of Jesus who said,
"Matthew 6:5 - 7
5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. "

You can't trust the government.

Actually you can't trust anybody. We all tell others that what we believe or what is in our best interest for them to believe is true.

Violence never solves anything.

Often it doesn't. Sometimes
it does.

Everyone can learn.

Many just do not have the perspective and
the ability to think in networks that is required to understand complicated
systems. They can learn to follow instructions without understanding the
matter.

All people are fundamentally rational and can be reasoned with.

People are mostly guided by emotion, ego, and greed more than by reason.

People are not evil. Some are just misunderstood.

Some are just misunderstood. Some are just evil.

One technique of propaganda is the "Big Lie". It turns out that if you repeat it long enough and often enough people will believe it without any proof whatsoever.

Once a set of beliefs are established in one's mind they are very difficult or even impossible to dislodge. This process is not based on fact, or logic or scientific methods. It is based on emotions and emotional appeals. People believe what they want to believe regardless of facts or inconsistencies. People are actually very capable of holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

Many people believe that the salesman or the politician wants to help them.
They believe that because that is what the salesman or the politician just
told them. What the salesman or the politician actually wants is to get
something of value from them whether it be their money or their vote. It may
be that this other person actually will help them or he may eventually hurt
them. Regardless, it is necessary to realize his actual motive. The only
person you can depend on to help you is either someone who has a deep
emotional attachment to you or someone whose best interest lies in helping you
because, in doing so, he helps himself in some way.

A child lives in a world that is safe due to the protection offered by his
parents. Particularly as a baby, he knows that the parents give food,
shelter, warmth and physical protection. As the child grows and ventures out
into the world on the journey toward adulthood he learns that the world is a
more fearsome place with more threats than he had realized. He also learns
that the protection offered by his parents and family is limited and at some
times and places will not be there.

One way to adapt to this situation is to train himself and learn to be self
reliant. Other ways include relying on a group for a sense of belonging and
purpose such as joining a gang or joining the military or the police or some
similiar group. A third way is to join a religion and believe in a God who is
all powerful and can take the place of parents.

I argue that those who as a child have developed self esteem and self
confidence and who are perhaps stronger physically, emotionally or mentally
would tend to become more self reliant and would tend to become more educated
and to feel that they can have some control over their environment and the
world in which they live. They become progressives who want to change the
world for the better.

Others feel more comfortable in the world as they have always known it and as
it exists. They feel that the world is as it should be. From a religious
standpoint they feel that this is the world as God made it and to try to
change it would show arrogance and heresy. They become conservatives who want
to preserve the status quo.

From a status standpoint those who are in the top tiers of society want to
preserve the status quo as do those who are in the bottom tiers and are
usually those with limited abilities and who feel dependent on others for
their purpose, safety and existence and are fearful of change because change
might make things worse.

There are also those who want to work with others either to change the world
or to preserve the status quo as opposed to those who simply want to be left
alone to live their lives and do not want others telling them what to do. In
other words they do not see society as a cooperative effort but instead are
sturdy individualists.

Governments and Religions tend to want to preserve the status quo. That is
why children are taught in school that they live in the greatest society and
they should be patriotic by acclaiming it and preserving it. They are taught
in church that they must be subserviant to the will of God as taught by the
church.

The effect of this is that the very small percentage of people who actually
have the wealth and power in society are supported by the very large
percentage who have very little wealth or power but are fearful of change.
The only threat to this state comes when those in the top tiers due to ego and
greed gain so much that those in the bottom tier feel they have nothing left
to lose and are willing to join with those progressives in the middle to
effect change.

In 1937, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) was created to educate the American public about the widespread nature of political propaganda. Composed of social scientists and journalists, the IPA published a series of books

In The Fine Art of Propaganda, the IPA stated that "It is essential in a democratic society that young people and adults learn how to think, learn how to make up their minds. They must learn how to think independently, and they must learn how to think together. They must come to conclusions, but at the same time they must recognize the right of other men to come to opposite conclusions. So far as individuals are concerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently together."

The IPA identified the following techniques of propaganda:

Name Calling

"Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations, and races."

The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.

The most obvious type of name calling involves bad names. For example, consider the following:

Commie

Fascist

Pig

Yuppie

Bum

Queer

Terrorist

liberal

socialist

communist

right winger

atheist

neanderthal

Catholic

Mormon

Jew

faggot

pervert

extremist

foreign

black

bumpkin

hillbilly

A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected
because they possess a negative emotional charge. Those who oppose budget cuts
may characterize fiscally conservative politicians as "stingy." Supporters
might prefer to describe them as "thrifty." Both words refer to the same
behavior, but they have very different connotations. Other examples of
negatively charged words include:

social engineering

radical

cowardly

counter-culture

The name-calling technique was first identified by the Institute for
Propaganda Analysis (IPA) in 1938. According to the IPA, we should ask
ourselves the following questions when we spot an example of name-calling.

What does the name mean?

Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?

Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don't like?

Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?

For our purposes in propaganda analysis, we call these virtue words
"Glittering Generalities" in order to focus attention upon this dangerous
characteristic that they have: They mean different things to different people;
they can be used in different ways.

This is not a criticism of these words as we understand them. Quite the
contrary. It is a criticism of the uses to which propagandists put the
cherished words and beliefs of unsuspecting people.

When someone talks to us about democracy, we immediately think of our own
definite ideas about democracy, the ideas we learned at home, at school, and
in church. Our first and natural reaction is to assume that the speaker is
using the word in our sense, that he believes as we do on this important
subject. This lowers our 'sales resistance' and makes us far less suspicious
than we ought to be when the speaker begins telling us the things 'the United
States must do to preserve democracy.'

The Glittering Generality is, in short, Name Calling in reverse. While Name
Calling seeks to make us form a judgment to reject and condemn without
examining the evidence, the Glittering Generality device seeks to make us
approve and accept without examining the evidence. In acquainting ourselves
with the Glittering Generality Device, therefore, all that has been said
regarding Name Calling must be kept in mind..." (Institute for Propaganda
Analysis, 1938)

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggested a number of questions that
people should ask themselves when confronted with this technique:

What does the virtue word really mean?

Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the word:

Is an idea that does not serve my best interests being "sold" to me merely through its being given a name that I like?

Leaving the virtue word out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?

word games

When propagandists use glittering generalities and name-calling symbols, they
are attempting to arouse their audience with vivid, emotionally suggestive
words. In certain situations, however, the propagandist attempts to pacify the
audience in order to make an unpleasant reality more palatable. This is
accomplished by using words that are bland and euphemistic.

Since war is particularly unpleasant, military discourse is full of
euphemisms. In the 1940's, America changed the name of the War Department to
the Department of Defense. Under the Reagan Administration, the MX-Missile was
renamed "The Peacekeeper." During war-time, civilian casualties are referred
to as "collateral damage," and the word "liquidation" is used as a synonym for
"murder."

The comedian George Carlin notes that, in the wake of the first world war,
traumatized veterans were said to be suffering from "shell shock." The short,
vivid phrase conveys the horrors of battle -- one can practically hear the
shells exploding overhead. After the second world war, people began to use the
term "combat fatigue" to characterize the same condition. The phrase is a bit
more pleasant, but it still acknowledges combat as the source of discomfort.
In the wake of the Vietnam War, people referred to "post-traumatic stress
disorder": a phrase that is completely disconnected from the reality of war
altogether.

Transfer

You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorn. You shall
not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold! — William Jennings Bryan, 1896

"Transfer is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority,
sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he
would have us accept. For example, most of us respect and revere our church
and our nation. If the propagandist succeeds in getting church or nation to
approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its
authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may accept
something which otherwise we might reject.

In the Transfer device, symbols are constantly used. The cross represents the
Christian Church. The flag represents the nation. Cartoons like Uncle Sam
represent a consensus of public opinion. Those symbols stir emotions . At
their very sight, with the speed of light, is aroused the whole complex of
feelings we have with respect to church or nation. A cartoonist, by having
Uncle Sam disapprove a budget for unemployment relief, would have us feel that
the whole United States disapproves relief costs. By drawing an Uncle Sam who
approves the same budget, the cartoonist would have us feel that the American
people approve it. Thus, the Transfer device is used both for and against
causes and ideas." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

When a political activist closes her speech with a public prayer, she is
attempting to transfer religious prestige to the ideas that she is advocating.
As with all propaganda devices, the use of this technique is not limited to
one side of the political spectrum. It can be found in the speeches of
liberation theologists on the left, and in the sermons of religious activists
on the right.

In a similar fashion, propagandists may attempt to transfer the reputation of
"Science" or "Medicine" to a particular project or set of beliefs. A slogan
for a popular cough drop encourages audiences to "Visit the halls of
medicine." On TV commercials, actors in white lab coats tell us that the
"Brand X is the most important pain reliever that can be bought without a
prescription." In both of these examples, the transfer technique is at work.

These techniques can also take a more ominous turn. As Alfred Lee has argued,
"even the most flagrantly anti-scientific racists are wont to dress up their
arguments at times with terms and carefully selected illustrations drawn from
scientific works and presented out of all accurate context." The propaganda of
Nazi Germany, for example, rationalized racist policies by appealing to both
science and religion.

This does not mean that religion and science have no place in discussions
about social issues! The point is that an idea or program should not be
accepted or rejected simply because it has been linked to a symbol such as
Medicine, Science, Democracy, or Christianity. The Institute for Propaganda
Analysis has argued that, when confronted with the transfer device, we should
ask ourselves the following questions:

In the most simple and concrete terms, what is the proposal of the speaker?

What is the meaning of the the thing from which the propagandist is seeking to transfer authority, sanction, and prestige?

Is there any legitimate connection between the proposal of the propagandist and the revered thing, person or institution?

Leaving the propagandistic trick out of the picture, what are the merits of the proposal viewed alone?

Testimonial

Tiger Woods is on the cereal box, promoting Wheaties as part of a balanced
breakfast. Cher is endorsing a new line of cosmetics, and La Toya Jackson says
that the Psychic Friends Network changed her life. The lead singer of R.E.M
appears on a public service announcement and encourages fans to support the
"Motor Voter Bill." The actor who played the bartender on Cheers is an
outspoken environmentalist.

"This is the classic misuse of the Testimonial Device that comes to the minds
of most of us when we hear the term. We recall it indulgently and tell
ourselves how much more sophisticated we are than our grandparents or even our
parents.

With our next breath, we begin a sentence, 'The Times said,' 'John L. Lewis
said...,' 'Herbert Hoover said...', 'The President said...', 'My doctor
said...,' 'Our minister said...' Some of these Testimonials may merely give
greater emphasis to a legitimate and accurate idea, a fair use of the device;
others, however, may represent the sugar-coating of a distortion, a falsehood,
a misunderstood notion, an anti-social suggestion..." (Institute for
Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

There is nothing wrong with citing a qualified source, and the testimonial
technique can be used to construct a fair, well-balanced argument. However, it
is often used in ways that are unfair and misleading.

The most common misuse of the testimonial involves citing individuals who are
not qualified to make judgements about a particular issue. In 1992, Barbara
Streisand supported Bill Clinton, and Arnold Schwarzenegger threw his weight
behind George Bush. Both are popular performers, but there is no reason to
think that they know what is best for this country.

Unfair testimonials are usually obvious, and most of us have probably seen
through this rhetorical trick at some time or another. However, this probably
happened when the testimonial was provided by a celebrity that we did not
respect. When the testimony is provided by an admired celebrity, we are much
less likely to be critical.

According to the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, we should ask ourselves
the following questions when we encounter this device.

Who or what is quoted in the testimonial?

Why should we regard this person (or organization or publication) as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?

What does the idea amount to on its own merits, without the benefit of the Testimonial?

You may have noticed the presence of the testimonial technique in the previous
paragraph, which began by citing the Insitute for Propaganda Analysis. In this
case, the technique is justified. Or is it?

Band Wagon

"The propagandist hires a hall, rents radio stations, fills a great stadium,
marches a million or at least a lot of men in a parade. He employs symbols,
colors, music, movement, all the dramatic arts. He gets us to write letters,
to send telegrams, to contribute to his cause. He appeals to the desire,
common to most of us, to follow the crowd. Because he wants us to follow the
crowd in masses, he directs his appeal to groups held together already by
common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, sex, vocation. Thus
propagandists campaigning for or against a program will appeal to us as
Catholics, Protestants, or Jews...as farmers or as school teachers; as
housewives or as miners.

With the aid of all the other propaganda devices, all of the artifices of
flattery are used to harness the fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases,
convictions and ideals common to a group. Thus is emotion made to push and
pull us as members of a group onto a Band Wagon." (Institute for Propaganda
Analysis, 1938)

The basic theme of the Band Wagon appeal is that "everyone else is doing it,
and so should you." Since few of us want to be left behind, this technique can
be quite successful. However, as the IPA points out, "there is never quite as
much of a rush to climb onto the Band Wagon as the propagandist tries to make
us think there is." When confronted with this technique, it may be helpful to
ask ourselves the following questions:

What is this propagandist's program?

What is the evidence for and against the program?

Regardless of the fact that others are supporting this program, should I support it?

Does the program serve or undermine my individual and collective interests?

Plain Folks

By using the plain-folks technique, speakers attempt to convince their
audience that they, and their ideas, are "of the people." The device is used
by advertisers and politicans alike.

America's recent presidents have all been millionaires, but they have gone to
great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens. Bill Clinton ate at
McDonald's and confessed a fondness for trashy spy novels. George Bush Sr.
hated broccoli, and loved to fish. Ronald Reagan was often photographed
chopping wood, and Jimmy Carter presented himself as a humble peanut farmer
from Georgia.

We are all familiar with candidates who campaign as political outsiders,
promising to "clean out the barn" and set things straight in Washington. The
political landscape is dotted with politicians who challenge a mythical
"cultural elite," presumably aligning themselves with "ordinary Americans." As
baby boomers approach their sixth decade, we are no longer shocked by the
sight of politicians in denim who listen to rock and roll.

In all of these examples, the plain-folks device is at work.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis has argued that, when confronted with
this device, we should suspend judgement and ask ourselves the following
questions:

What are the propagandist's ideas worth when divorced from his or her personality?

What could he or she be trying to cover up with the plain-folks approach?

What are the facts?

Fear

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with
students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country.
Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes -
danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation
cannot survive." - Adolf Hitler, 1932

When a propagandist warns members of her audience that disaster will result if
they do not follow a particular course of action, she is using the fear
appeal. By playing on the audience's deep-seated fears, practitioners of this
technique hope to redirect attention away from the merits of a particular
proposal and toward steps that can be taken to reduce the fear.

This technique can be highly effective when wielded by a fascist demagogue,
but it is typically used in less dramatic ways. Consider the following:

A television commercial portrays a terrible automobile accident (the fear appeal), and reminds viewers to wear their seat-belts (the fear-reducing behavior).

A pamphlet from an insurance company includes pictures of houses destroyed by floods (the fear appeal), and follows up with details about home-owners' insurance (the fear-reducing behavior).

A letter from a pro-gun organization begins by describing a lawless America in which only criminals own guns (the fear appeal), and concludes by asking readers to oppose a ban on automatic weapons (the fear-reducing behavior).

Since the end of the second world war, social psychologists and communication
scholars have been conducting empirical studies in order to learn more about
the effectiveness of fear appeals. Some have criticized the conceptualization
of the studies, and others have found fault with the experimental methods, but
the general conclusions are worth considering, if not accepting.

"All other things being equal, the more frightened a person is by a communication, the more likely her or she is to take positive preventive action."(Pratkanis and Aronson, 1991)

Fear appeals will not succeed in altering behavior if the audience feels powerless to change the situation.

Fear appeals are more likely to succeed in changing behavior if they contain specific recommendations for reducing the threat that the audience believes are both effective and doable.

In summary, there are four elements to a successful fear appeal: 1) a threat,
2) a specific recommendation about how the audience should behave, 3) audience
perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat,
and 4) audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended
behavior.

When fear appeals do not include all four elements, they are likely to fail.
Pratkanis and Aronson provide the example of the anti-nuclear movement, which
successfully aroused public fear of nuclear war, but offered few specific
recommendations that people perceived as effective or doable. By contrast,
fall-out shelters were enormously popular during the 1950s because people
believed that shelters would protect them from nuclear war, and installing a
shelter was something that they could do.

In a similar fashion, during the 1964 campaign, Lyndon Johnson was said to
have swayed many voters with a well-known television commercial that portrayed
a young girl being annihilated in a nuclear blast. This commercial linked
nuclear war to Barry Goldwater (Johnson's opponent), and proposed a vote for
Johnson as an effective, doable way of avoiding the threat.

In contemporary politics, the fear-appeal continues to be widespread. When a
politician agitates the public's fear of immigration, or crime, and proposes
that voting for her will reduce the threat, she is using this technique. When
confronted with persuasive messages that capitalize on our fear, we should ask
ourselves the following questions:

Is the speaker exaggerating the fear or threat in order to obtain my support?

How legitimate is the fear that the speaker is provoking?

Will performing the recommended action actually reduce the supposed threat?

When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the speaker's proposal?

Logical fallacies

Logic is the process of drawing a conclusion from one or more premises. A
statement of fact, by itself, is neither logical or illogical (although it can
be true or false).

As an example of how logic can be abused, consider the following argument
which has been widely propagated on the Internet.

Premise 1: Hillary Clinton supports gun-control legislation.

Premise 2: All fascist regimes of the twentieth century have passed gun-control legislation.

Conclusion: Hillary Clinton is a fascist.

One way of testing the logic of an argument like this is to translate the
basic terms and see if the conclusion still makes sense. As you can see, the
premises may be correct, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

Premise 1: All Christians believe in God.

Premise 2: All Muslims believe in God.

Conclusion: All Christians are Muslims.

This is a rather extreme example of how logic can be abused. The following
pages describe others.

It should be noted that a message can be illogical without being
propagandistic -- we all make logical mistakes. The difference is that
propagandists deliberately manipulate logic in order to promote their cause.

The tendency to make huge predictions about the future on the basis of a few
small facts is a common logical fallacy.

As Stuart Chase points out, "it is easy to see the persuasiveness in this type
of argument. By pushing one's case to the limit... one forces the opposition
into a weaker position. The whole future is lined up against him. Driven to
the defensive, he finds it hard to disprove something which has not yet
happened.

Extrapolation is what scientists call such predictions, with the warning that
they must be used with caution. A homely illustration is the driver who found
three gas stations per mile along a stretch of the Montreal highway in
Vermont, and concluded that there must be plenty of gas all the way to the
North Pole. You chart two or three points, draw a curve through them, and
extend it indefinitely."(Chase, 1952)

This logical sleight of hand often provides the basis for an effective fear-
appeal. Consider the following contemporary examples:

If Congress passes legislation limiting the availability of automatic weapons, America will slide down a slippery slope which will ultimately result in the banning of all guns, the destruction of the Constitution, and a totalitarian police state.

If the United States approves NAFTA, the giant sucking sound that we hear will be the sound of thousands of jobs and factories disappearing to Mexico.

The introduction of communication tools such as the Internet will lead to a radical decentralization of government, greater political participation, and a rebirth of community.

When a communicator attempts to convince you that a particular action will
lead to disaster or to utopia, it may be helpful to ask the following
questions:

Is there enough data to support the speaker's predictions about the future?

Can I think of other ways that things might turn out?

If there are many different ways that things could turn out, why is the speaker painting such an extreme picture?

Of Fraud and Force Fast Woven:

Domestic Propaganda During the First World War

"Lead this people into war, and they'll forget there was ever such a thing as
tolerance. To fight, you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of
ruthless brutality will enter into the very fibre of national life, infecting
the Congress, the courts, the policeman on the beat, the man in the street."

It is one of history's great ironies that Woodrow Wilson, who was re-elected
as a peace candidate in 1916, led America into the first world war. With the
help of a propaganda apparatus that was unparalleled in world history, Wilson
forged a nation of immigrants into a fighting whole. An examination of public
opinion before the war, propaganda efforts during the war, and the endurance
of propaganda in peacetime raises significant questions about the viability of
democracy as a governing principle.

Like an undertow, America's drift toward war was subtle and forceful.
According to the outspoken pacifist Randolph Bourne, war sentiment spread
gradually among various intellectual groups. "With the aid of Roosevelt,"
wrote Bourne, "the murmurs became a monotonous chant, and finally a chorus so
mighty that to be out of it was at first to be disreputable, and finally
almost obscene." Once the war was underway, dissent was practically
impossible. "[I]f you believed our going into this war was a mistake," wrote
The Nation in a post-war editorial, "if you held, as President Wilson did
early in 1917, that the ideal outcome would be 'peace without victory,' you
were a traitor." Forced to stand quietly on the sidelines while their
neighbors stampeded towards war, many pacifists would have agreed with
Bertrand Russell that "the greatest difficulty was the purely psychological
one of resisting mass suggestion, of which the force becomes terrific when the
whole nation is in a state of violent collective excitement."

This frenzied support for the war was particularly remarkable in light of the
fact that Wilson's re-election had been widely interpreted as a vote for
peace. After all, in January of 1916, Wilson stated that "so far as I can
remember, this is a government of the people, and this people is not going to
choose war." In retrospect, it is apparent that the vote for Wilson cloaked
profound cleavages in public opinion. At the time of his inauguration,
immigrants constituted one third of the population. Allied and German
propaganda revived old-world loyalties among "hyphenated" European-Americans,
and opinions about US intervention were sharply polarized. More than eight
million German-Americans lived in this country, and many were sympathetic to
the cause of their homeland. Meanwhile, anti-German feeling was strong among
the upper classes on the Atlantic coast, and was particularly intense among
those with social and business connections to Britain or France. Most
Americans, however, were not connected to the European conflict by blood or
capital, and were not interested in waging war overseas.

The absence of public unity was a primary concern when America entered the war
on April 6, 1917. In Washington, unwavering public support was considered to
be crucial to the entire wartime effort. On April 13, 1917, Wilson created the
Committee on Public Information (CPI) to promote the war domestically while
publicizing American war aims abroad. Under the leadership of a muckraking
journalist named George Creel, the CPI recruited heavily from business, media,
academia, and the art world. The CPI blended advertising techniques with a
sophisticated understanding of human psychology, and its efforts represent the
first time that a modern government disseminated propaganda on such a large
scale. It is fascinating that this phenomenon, often linked with totalitarian
regimes, emerged in a democratic state.

Although George Creel was an outspoken critic of censorship at the hands of
public servants, the CPI took immediate steps to limit damaging information.
Invoking the threat of German propaganda, the CPI implemented "voluntary
guidelines" for the news media and helped to pass the Espionage Act of 1917
and the Sedition Act of 1918. The CPI did not have explicit enforcement power,
but it nevertheless "enjoyed censorship power which was tantamount to direct
legal force." Like modern reporters who participate in Pentagon press pools,
journalists grudgingly complied with the official guidelines in order to stay
connected to the information loop. Radical newspapers, such as the socialist
Appeal to Reason, were almost completely extinguished by wartime limitations
on dissent. The CPI was not a censor in the strictest sense, but "it came as
close to performing that function as any government agency in the US has ever
done."

Censorship was only one element of the CPI's efforts. With all the
sophistication of a modern advertising agency, the CPI examined the different
ways that information flowed to the population and flooded these channels with
pro-war material. The CPI's domestic division was composed of 19 sub-
divisions, and each focused on a particular type of propaganda. A
comprehensive survey is beyond the scope of this paper, but the use of
newspapers, academics, artists, and filmmakers will be discussed.

One of the most important elements of the CPI was the Division of News, which
distributed more than 6,000 press releases and acted as the primary conduit
for war-related information. According to Creel, on any given week, more than
20,000 newspaper columns were filled with material gleaned from CPI handouts.
Realizing that many Americans glided right past the front page and headed
straight for the features section, the CPI also created the Division of
Syndicated Features and recruited the help of leading novelists, short story
writers, and essayists. These popular American writers presented the official
line in an easily digestible form, and their work was said to have reached
twelve million people every month.

The Division of Civic and Educational Cooperation relied heavily on scholars
who churned out pamphlets with titles such as The German Whisper, German War
Practices, and Conquest and Kultur. The academic rigor of many of these pieces
was questionable, but more respectable thinkers, such as John Dewey and Walter
Lippmann, also voiced their support for the war. Even in the face of this
trend, however, a few scholars refused to fall in line. Randolph Bourne had
been one John Dewey's star students, and he felt betrayed by his mentor's
collaboration with the war effort. In one of several eloquent wartime essays,
Bourne savagely attacked his colleagues for self-consciously guiding the
country into the conflict. "[T]he German intellectuals went to war to save
their culture from barbarization," wrote Bourne. "And the French went to war
to save their beautiful France!... Are not our intellectuals equally fatuous
when they tell us that our war of all wars is stainless and thrillingly
achieving for good?"

The CPI did not limit its promotional efforts to the written word. The
Division of Pictorial Publicity "had at its disposal many of the most talented
advertising illustrators and cartoonists of the time," and these artists
worked closely with publicity experts in the Advertising Division. Newspapers
and magazines eagerly donated advertising space, and it was almost impossible
to pick up a periodical without encountering CPI material. Powerful posters,
painted in patriotic colors, were plastered on billboards across the country.
Even from the cynical vantage point of the mid 1990s, there is something
compelling about these images that leaps across the decades and stirs a deep
yearning to buy liberty bonds or enlist in the navy.

Moving images were even more popular than still ones, and the Division of
Films ensured that the war was promoted in the cinema. The film industry
suffered from a sleazy reputation, and producers sought respectability by
lending wholehearted support to the war effort. Hollywood's mood was summed up
in a 1917 editorial in The Motion Picture News which proclaimed that "every
individual at work in this industry wants to do his share" and promised that
"through slides, film leaders and trailers, posters, and newspaper publicity
they will spread that propaganda so necessary to the immediate mobilization of
the country's great resources." Movies with titles like The Kaiser: The Beast
of Berlin, Wolves of Kultur, and Pershing's Crusaders flooded American
theaters. One picture, To Hell With The Kaiser, was so popular that
Massachusetts riot police were summoned to deal with an angry mob that had
been denied admission.

The preceding discussion merely hints at the breadth of CPI domestic
propaganda activities. From lecture hall podiums and movie screens to the
pages of popular fiction and the inside of payroll envelopes, the cause of the
Allies was creatively publicized in almost every available communication
channel. But this is only part of the story. The propaganda techniques
employed by the CPI are also fascinating, and, from the standpoint of
democratic government, much more significant.

Defining Propaganda

The word "propaganda" has already been used several times, and the reader may
wonder how this term is being used. The definition of propaganda has been
widely debated, but there is little agreement about what it means. Some argue
that all persuasive communication is propagandistic, while others suggest that
only dishonest messages can be considered propaganda. Political activists of
all stripes claim that they speak the truth while their opponents preach
propaganda. In order to accommodate the breadth of the CPI's activities, this
discussion relies on Harold Lasswell's broad interpretation of the term. "Not
bombs nor bread," wrote Lasswell, "but words, pictures, songs, parades, and
many similar devices are the typical means of making propaganda." According to
Lasswell, "propaganda relies on symbols to attain its end: the manipulation of
collective attitudes."

Propagandists usually attempt to influence individuals while leading each one
to behave "as though his response were his own decision." Mass communication
tools extend the propagandist's reach and make it possible to shape the
attitudes of many individuals simultaneously. Because propagandists attempt to
"do the other fellow's thinking for him," they prefer indirect messages to
overt, logical arguments. During the war, the CPI accomplished this by making
calculated emotional appeals, by demonizing Germany, by linking the war to the
goals of various social groups, and, when necessary, by lying outright.

Emotional Appeals

CPI propaganda typically appealed to the heart, not to the mind. Emotional
agitation is a favorite technique of the propagandist, because "any emotion
may be 'drained off' into any activity by skillful manipulation." An article
which appeared in Scientific Monthly shortly after the war argued that "the
detailed suffering of a little girl and her kitten can motivate our hatred
against the Germans, arouse our sympathy for Armenians, make us enthusiastic
for the Red Cross, or lead us to give money for a home for cats." Wartime
slogans such as "Bleeding Belgium," "The Criminal Kaiser," and "Make the World
Safe For Democracy," suggest that the CPI was no stranger to this idea.
Evidence of this technique can be seen in a typical propaganda poster that
portrayed an aggressive, bayonet-wielding German soldier above the caption
"Beat Back The Hun With Liberty Bonds." In this example, the emotions of hate
and fear were redirected toward giving money to the war effort. It is an
interesting side-note that many analysts attribute the failure of German
propaganda in America to the fact that it emphasized logic over passion.
According to Count von Bernstorff, a German diplomat, "the outstanding
characteristic of the average American is rather a great, though superficial,
sentimentality," and German press telegrams completely failed to grasp this
fact.

Demonization

A second propaganda technique used by the CPI was demonization of the enemy.
"So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations," wrote
Lasswell "that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a
menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about who the public
is to hate." American propaganda was not the only source of anti-German
feeling, but most historians agree that the CPI pamphlets went too far in
portraying Germans as depraved, brutal aggressors. For example, in one CPI
publication, Professor Vernon Kellogg asked "will it be any wonder if, after
the war, the people of the world, when they recognize any human being as a
German, will shrink aside so that they may not touch him as he passes, or
stoop for stones to drive him from their path?"

A particularly effective strategy for demonizing Germans was the use of
atrocity stories. "A handy rule for arousing hate," said Lasswell "is, if at
first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying
success in every conflict known to man." Unlike the pacifist, who argues that
all wars are brutal, the atrocity story implies that war is only brutal when
practiced by the enemy. Certain members of the CPI were relatively cautious
about repeating unsubstantiated allegations, but the committee's publications
often relied on dubious material. After the war, Edward Bernays, who directed
CPI propaganda efforts in Latin America, openly admitted that his colleagues
used alleged atrocities to provoke a public outcry against Germany. Some of
the atrocity stories which were circulated during the war, such as the one
about a tub full of eyeballs or the story of the seven-year old boy who
confronted German soldiers with a wooden gun, were actually recycled from
previous conflicts. In his seminal work on wartime propaganda, Lasswell
speculated that atrocity stories will always be popular because the audience
is able to feel self-righteous indignation toward the enemy, and, at some
level, identify with the perpetrators of the crimes. "A young woman, ravished
by the enemy," he wrote "yields secret satisfaction to a host of vicarious
ravishers on the other side of the border."

Anti-German propaganda fueled support for the war, but it also contributed to
intolerance on the home front. Dachshunds were renamed liberty dogs, German
measles were renamed liberty measles, and the City University of New York
reduced by one credit every course in German. Fourteen states banned the
speaking of German in public schools. The military adversary was thousands of
miles away, but German-Americans provided convenient local scapegoats. In Van
Houten, New Mexico, an angry mob accused an immigrant miner of supporting
Germany and forced him to kneel before them, kiss the flag, and shout "To hell
with the Kaiser." In Illinois, a group of zealous patriots accused Robert
Prager, a German coal miner, of hoarding explosives. Though Prager asserted
his loyalty to the very end, he was lynched by the angry mob. Explosives were
never found.

The War to End All Wars

Emotional appeals and simplistic caricatures of the enemy influenced many
Americans, but the CPI recognized that certain social groups had more complex
propaganda needs. In order to reach intellectuals and pacifists, the CPI
claimed that military intervention would bring about a democratic League of
Nations and end warfare forever. With other social groups, the CPI modified
its arguments, and interpreted the war as "a conflict to destroy the threat of
German industrial competition (business group), to protect the American
standard of living (labor), to remove certain baneful German influences in our
education (teachers), to destroy German music - itself a subtle propaganda
(musicians), to preserve civilization, 'we' and `civilization' being
synonymous (nationalists), to make the world safe for democracy, crush
militarism, [and] establish the rights of small nations et al. (religious and
idealistic groups)." It is impossible to make rigorous statements about which
one of these appeals was most effective, but this is the advantage that the
propagandist has over the communications scholar. The propagandist is
primarily concerned with effectiveness and can afford to ignore the
methodological demands of social science.

Dishonesty

Finally, like most propagandists, the CPI was frequently dishonest. Despite
George Creel's claim that the CPI strived for unflinching accuracy, many of
his employees later admitted that they were quite willing to lie. Will Irwin,
an ex-CPI member who published several confessional pieces after the war, felt
that the CPI was more honest than other propaganda ministries, but made it
clear that "we never told the whole truth - not by any manner of means."
Citing an intelligence officer who bluntly said "you can't tell them the
truth," G.S Viereck argued that, as on all fronts, victories were routinely
manufactured by American military authorities. The professional propagandist
realizes that, when a single lie is exposed, the entire campaign is
jeopardized. Dishonesty is discouraged, but on strategic, not moral, grounds.

In the final months of 1918, as the war drew to a close, the CPI fell under
increasing scrutiny from a war-weary American public and from the Republican
majority that had gained control of Congress. On November 12, 1918, George
Creel halted the domestic activities of the CPI. The activities of the foreign
division were ended, amidst great controversy, a few months later. One might
assume that the wartime propagandists then put down their pens and
paintbrushes and returned to ordinary life. This was not the case.

According to Lasswell, many former agents of the CPI stayed in Washington and
New York and took advantage of their skill and contacts. Two years later, the
Director of the CPI's Foreign Division argued that "the history of propaganda
in the war would scarcely be worthy of consideration here, but for one fact -
it did not stop with the armistice. No indeed! The methods invented and tried
out in the war were too valuable for the uses of governments, factions, and
special interests." Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, took the
techniques he learned in the CPI directly to Madison Avenue and became an
outspoken proponent of propaganda as a tool for democratic government. "It
was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that
opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the
possibilities of regimenting the public mind," wrote Bernays in his 1928
bombshell Propaganda. "It was only natural, after the war ended, that
intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply
a similar technique to the problems of peace."

This peacetime application of what was, after all, a tool of war, began to
trouble Americans who suspected that they had been misled. In The New
Republic, John Dewey questioned the paternalistic assumptions of those who
disguised propaganda as news. "There is uneasiness and solicitude about what
men hear and learn," wrote Dewey, and the "paternalistic care for the source
of men's beliefs, once generated by war, carries over to the troubles of
peace." Dewey argued that the manipulation of information was particularly
evident in coverage of post-Revolutionary Russia. The Nation agreed in 1919,
arguing that "what has happened in regard to Russia is the most striking case
in point as showing what may be accomplished by Government propaganda...
Bartholomew nights that never take place, together with the wildest rumors of
communism in women, and of murder and bloodshed, taken from obscure
Scandinavian newspapers, are hastily relayed to the US, while everything
favorable to the Soviets, every bit of constructive accomplishment, is
suppressed."

When one considers the horrible legacy of the war, it is tempting to pin
complete responsibility for American involvement on hate-mongering militarists
in the CPI. Such retroactive condemnation is no more complex than a wartime
slogan. Ultimately, their guilt is less important than the questions their
activities raised about the role of propaganda in a democratic society.

Democratic theory, as interpreted by Jefferson and Paine, was rooted in the
Enlightenment belief that free citizens could form respectable opinions about
issues of the day and use these opinions to guide their own destiny.
Communication between citizens was assumed to be a necessary element of the
democratic process. During the first world war, America's leaders felt that
citizens were not making the correct decisions quickly enough, so they flooded
the channels of communication with dishonest messages that were designed to
stir up emotions and provoke hatred of Germany. The war came to an end, but
propaganda did not. For the past seven decades, those who lead our nation,
along with those who seek to overthrow it, have mouthed the ideals of
Jefferson while behaving like Bernays.

Is propaganda compatible with democracy, or does it undermine the population's
ability to think critically about world events? What happens when simplistic,
emotional appeals are endlessly repeated? During the war, Bourne complained
that "simple syllogisms are substituted for analysis, things are known by
their labels, [and] our heart's desire dictates what we shall see." Could this
description apply equally to a political climate in which slogans like "Three
Strikes, You're Out," "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and "Just Say No" are treated
as if they were actual policies for dealing with social needs?

What of the propagandist's argument that the complexity of the modern world
makes obsolete the Enlightenment faith in popular wisdom? It is impossible for
one person to simultaneously be an expert in foreign policy, labor disputes,
the environment, the educational system, health care, constitutional law, and
scientific regulation. Even the President is forced to rely on the advice of
key advisors. Should America follow Bernays' prescription and accept the
wisdom of "a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who
know how to regiment and guide the masses?" Or is "leadership democracy"
simply one stage of our democratic development? Could it someday be replaced
by something more far reaching?

What contribution will emerging communication technologies make to the
dissemination of propaganda? Does the myth of "interactivity" legitimize an
unbalanced social relationship, or does it make it possible for the audience
to challenge the propagandist? The hosts of radio talk shows claim that theirs
is a democratic medium, but callers are screened in advance and filtered
through a three-second time delay. Are truly interactive tools on the horizon?

The important difference between our "leadership democracy" and a totalitarian
state is that we are allowed to raise questions such as these. However,
history shows that, in times of political crisis and social dislocation, this
freedom is one of the first to disappear. As we approach the end of the
twentieth century, finding answers to these questions is more important than
ever.

The following passages are reprinted from a press release found on the web
site of the America First Party. Pledging to fight "for Faith, Freedom and the
Constitution to put America First," the party was formed in April 2002. This
press release discusses the the recent controversy over the American pledge of
allegiance. What sort of propaganda techniques or logical fallacies, if any,
can you detect?

Stop the Insanity: Impeach the Judges Now

Boulder, CO — At the fourth meeting of the America First National Committee,
held by teleconference on June 26, 2002, the following resolution was
authorized unanimously by its members:

Whereas, brave patriots fought and died to bequeath to all Americans a noble
heritage of freedom; and,

Whereas, those Founders of our Nation pledged their lives, their fortunes, and
their sacred honor, declaring that they did so with "a firm reliance on the
Protection of Divine Providence"; and,

Whereas, the America First Party seeks to encourage Faith as one of our
Nation's traditional values through the recognition of our Judeo-Christian
heritage; and,

Whereas, the Flag of the United States of America is precious in the sight of
all those who love our country; and,

Whereas, our Pledge to that Flag is a solemn affirmation of allegiance to the
noblest, sweetest, and most precious ideals of the Country we love;

Now therefore be it resolved by the America First National Committee:

That we hereby condemn Federal Appeals Court Judges Alfred T. Goodwin and
Stephen Reinhardt for their unprovoked and dastardly attack upon that Flag and
its Pledge; and,

That we hereby deplore this latest attack by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court
of Appeals as yet another act of judicial tyranny, following in a long line of
usurpations of the United States Constitution and of the rights of the people;
and,

That we hereby denounce the members of the United States Senate, hypocrites,
cowards, Republicans, and Democrats all, who have replaced the performance of
what is now their required and sacred Constitutional duty with meaningless
condemnations of the men they themselves put on the federal bench; and,

That we hereby demand that Congress uphold its sacred duty to protect and
defend the Constitution by the immediate adoption of Articles of Impeachment
by the House, and Conviction and Removal by the Senate of Judges Goodwin and
Reinhardt, so that the Judges of this Country may know that their place and
their duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution, and not to trample upon
the rights of the people and help destroy America.

The following press release was posted on the Enron Corporation web site on
February 6, 2001. What propaganda techniques and logical fallacies, if any,
can you identify?

Enron Named Most Innovative for Sixth Year

HOUSTON -- Enron Corp. was named today the “Most Innovative Company in
America” for the sixth consecutive year by Fortune magazine.

“Our world-class employees and their commitment to innovative ideas continue
to drive our success in today’s fast-paced business environment,” said Kenneth
L. Lay, Enron chairman and CEO. “We are proud to receive this accolade for a
sixth year. It reflects our corporate culture which is driven by smart
employees who continually come up with new ways to grow our business.”

Enron placed No.18 overall on Fortune’s list of the nation’s 535 “Most Admired
Companies,” up from No. 36 last year. Enron also ranked among the top five in
“Quality of Management,” “Quality of Products/Services” and “Employee Talent.”

Corporations are judged primarily from feedback contained in confidential
questionnaires submitted by approximately 10,000 executives, directors and
securities analysts who were asked to rate the companies by industry on eight
attributes.

Enron is one of the world’s leading electricity, natural gas and
communications companies. The company, with revenues of $101 billion in 2000,
markets electricity and natural gas, delivers physical commodities and
financial and risk management services to customers around the world, and has
developed an intelligent network platform to facilitate online business.
Fortune magazine has named Enron “America’s Most Innovative Company” for six
consecutive years.

Newt Gingrich

This example is one of the most striking applications of propaganda techniques
in recent memory. A popular Republican politician on his way to the top, Newt
Gingrich clearly understood the power of propaganda. His political action
committee (GOPAC) mailed a pamphlet entitled Language, A Key Mechanism of
Control to Republicans across the country. The booklet offered rhetorical
advice to Republican candidates who wanted to "speak like Newt." It was
subsequently awarded a Doublespeak Award by the National Conference of
Teachers of English in 1990.

The booklet contained two lists of words. GOP candidates were instructed to
use one set of "positive, governing words," (glittering generalities) when
speaking about themselves. A second set of negative words (name-calling words)
were to be used against their opponents.

A brief glance at the words on Gingrich's lists suggests that they continue to
be powerful tools in American political discourse. Words such as "vision,
courage, lead, learn, commitment, empower, and freedom" are common to
politicians on all sides of the political spectrum. Call-in radio hosts
regularly use words like "ideological, liberal, bureaucracy, crisis, endanger,
and lie" to discredit certain ideas.

This is the list of "positive, governing words" that GOP candidates were told
to use when speaking about themselves or their policies.

Active(ly)

Activist

Building

Candid(ly)

Care(ing)

Challenge

Change

Children

Choice/choose

Citizen

Commitment

Common sense

Compete

Confident

Conflict

Control

Courage

Crusade

Debate

Dream

Duty

Eliminate good-time in prison

Empower(ment)

Fair

Family

Freedom

Hard work

Help

Humane

Incentive

Initiative

Lead

Learn

Legacy

Liberty

Light

Listen

Mobilize

Moral

Movement

Opportunity

Passionate

Peace

Pioneer

Precious

Premise

Preserve

Principle(d)

Pristine

Pro-(issue) flag, children, environment

Prosperity

Protect

Proud/pride

Provide

Reform

Rights

Share

Strength

Success

Tough

Truth

Unique

Vision

We/us/our

Workfare

This is the list of negative words and phrases that GOP candidates were told
to use when speaking about their opponents.

"Compassion" is not enough.

Anti-(issue) flag, family, child, jobs

Betray

Coercion

Collapse

Consequences

Corruption

Crisis

Decay

Deeper

Destroy

Destructive

Devour

Endanger

Failure

Greed

Hypocrisy

Ideological

Impose

Incompetent

Insecure

Liberal

Lie

Limit(s)

Pathetic

Permissive attitude

Radical

Self-serving

Sensationalists

Shallow

Sick

They/them

Threaten

Traitors

Unionized bureaucracy

Urgent

Waste

The following article about the Office of Strategic Information (OSI) was
written by Lou Morano for United Press International (February 26, 2002). It
is hereby reprinted in the spirit of fair use.

The Pentagon's publicized plans to create the propaganda bureau sparked a
hailstorm of debate. A few days later, a two-sentence article in the Financial
Times (London) reported that the Pentagon planned to close the OSI.

Propaganda: Remember the Kuwaiti babies?

By: Lou Morano

If you liked the lie about the murder of Kuwaiti babies after Iraq's invasion
of the oil-rich emirate in 1990, you'll love the Office of Strategic
Information.

That is, if the Pentagon's new office of shadow plays survives in the form it
had been envisioned.

Last week The New York Times reported that the Defense Department is paying
the Rendon Group, a Washington-based international consulting firm, $100,000
per month to help the OSI with a broad campaign that would include "black"
propaganda, or disinformation -- commonly known as lies.

This brought to mind one of the most notorious pieces of disinformation
promulgated the last time the government wanted to build public support for a
war against Iraq. It was fabricated by Hill and Knowlton, one of the world's
largest public relations firms. This is the story that in 1990 invading Iraqi
soldiers pulled Kuwaiti premature babies from their incubators and left them
to die on the cold floor. The Bush administration has scrambled away from the
storm of criticism sparked by the Times' report, and the president promised
Monday that his government would not lie about defense policy. On Sunday,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "The person
in charge is debating whether it should even exist in its current form, given
all the misinformation and adverse publicity it has received."

The OSI was created shortly after Sept. 11 to build public support abroad for
the U.S. war on terrorism.

On Wednesday, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith told
reporters that the Pentagon would never lie to the public. But United Press
International's Pentagon correspondent Pamela Hess wrote that Feith "refused
to rule out the possibility that hired guns -- private lobbying or public
relations firms with more legal latitude -- would spread misinformation on the
Pentagon's behalf."

On Monday a spokeswoman in the Office of the Secretary of Defense said Feith's
words had been misconstrued.

"I don't think he said that we might hire 'hired guns,'" said Army Lt. Col.
Catherine Abbot. "I think that's a misinterpretation of what he said."

But the transcript of the Feb. 20 Defense Writers' Group breakfast meeting
supports Hess' interpretation. Feith was asked twice if he had ruled out the
possibility of contractors spreading disinformation, and he evaded the
question both times.

The Rendon Group said it would not lie.

Spokeswoman Jeanne Sklarz declined to discuss the nature of Rendon's contract
with the Pentagon. "Let me just say that we have a
confidentiality/nondisclosure agreement in place" with the Department of
Defense. "We don't speak about the work we do for clients," she told UPI.

"The only thing I can say is that we have not, do not, and will not engage in
disinformation."

According to The New York Times, "the Rendon Group has done extensive work for
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Kuwaiti royal family and the Iraqi
National Congress, the opposition group seeking to oust President Saddam
Hussein. ... The firm is well known for running propaganda campaigns in Arab
countries, including one denouncing atrocities by Iraq during its 1990
invasion of Kuwait."

Reminded of Hill and Knowlton's incubator story -- which echoed World War I
Allied propaganda that invading German soldiers had bayoneted and mutilated
Belgian babies in 1914 -- Sklarz said: "We would not do that. ... (President)
John Rendon really believes that you don't need anything other than the truth
to deliver messages."

UPI asked Hill and Knowlton if it now acknowledges the incubator story as a
deception. "The company has nothing to say on this matter," media liaison
Suzanne Laurita replied. When asked if such a deception would be considered
part of the public relations business, she answered: "Please know again that
this falls into the realm that the agency has no wish to confirm, deny or
comment on."

The Iraqi invaders were guilty of enough acts of gratuitous cruelty, as
numerous eyewitnesses reported, that one wonders why inventing an atrocity was
considered necessary.

Hill and Knowlton did not produce the deception under a federal contract, but
rather on behalf of the oil-rich Kuwaiti government. An appearance of U.S.
government validation, however, came from a hearing of the Congressional Human
Rights Caucus on Oct. 10, 1990.

In his 1992 book "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War,"
Harpers magazine publisher John R. MacArthur wrote that the caucus is not a
committee of Congress, before which it would be a crime to lie under oath.
"Lying from under the cover of anonymity to a caucus is merely public
relations."

The 15-year-old star witness was indeed anonymous, identified only by her
first name of Nayirah. "According to the caucus, Nayirah's full name was being
kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied
Kuwait," MacArthur wrote.

In fact, she was a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, and her father --
ambassador to the United States Saud Nasir al-Sabah -- sat listening in the
hearing room. Sobbing, Nayirah described how she, as a volunteer at al-Addan
Hospital in Kuwait City, had seen Iraqi soldiers remove 312 babies from their
incubators and leave them to die on the floor.

On Jan. 12, 1991, the U.S. Senate approved support of the war against Iraq by
a narrow, five-vote margin. Did the story about the murdered babies make the
critical difference?

Let's hope we don't get any "stories" like this from contractors working for
the Office of Strategic Information.

In 1922, Walter Lippmann wrote his profoundly influential book, Public
Opinion, in which he expressed his thoughts on the inability of citizens – or
the public – to guide democracy or society for themselves. The
“intellectuality of mankind,” Lippmann argued, was exaggerated and false.
Instead, he defined the public as “an amalgam of stereotypes, prejudices and
inferences, a creature of habits and associations, moved by impulses of fear
and greed and imitation, exalted by tags and labels.”[28] Lippmann suggested
that for the effective “manufacture of consent,” what was needed were
“intelligence bureaus” or “observatories,” employing the social scientific
techniques of “disinterested” information to be provided to journalists,
governments, and businesses regarding the complex issues of modern
society.[29] These essentially came to be known and widely employed as think
tanks, the most famous of which is the Council on Foreign Relations, founded
in 1921 and to which Lippmann later belonged as a member.

In 1928, Edward Bernays wrote a book entitled, Propaganda, which later became
used by infamous propagandists such as Hitler’s propaganda chief, Joseph
Goebbels. On the first page of his book, Bernays wrote, and it is worth
quoting at some length:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and
opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those
who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible
government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested,
largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in
which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must
cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly
functioning society.

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of
their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to
supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure.
Whatever attitude one chooses toward this condition, it remains a fact that in
almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or
business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by
the relatively small number of persons… who understand the mental processes
and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control
the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind
and guide the world."

These ideas, among many others, have had incredible influence on the
philosophy, actions, intentions, and perceptions of not only American society,
but the world at large. They spurred on the development of the consumer
society, along with other projects of social engineering that have, through
the course of the 20th century, been focused on the application of social
control. It is fundamentally though the notion of “engineering consent” that
we have come to the point where so few are able to control so much, leaving
little to nothing for the vast majority of the world’s people. This elite
intellectual discussion which took place in the early 20th century came to
define democracy not only for America, but the world as a whole. Thus, we have
a new understanding when it comes to our leaders expressing their desires and
objectives of spreading democracy around the world. In short, they seek to
“engineer consent” on a much larger, grander scale than ever before imagined.
It is the globalization of social engineering which we are witnessing in the
modern era, and its origins lay in the discernable past.

The propagandist tries to stimulate others to accept without challenge his own
assertions, or to act as he wants them to do. The idea of using suggestion or
stimulation as a propaganda device is that it will lead a public to accept a
proposition even though there are not logical grounds for accepting it. The
propagandist usually tries to side-step critical reactions from his audience,
and therefore suggestion is one of his most important tools.

How does the propagandist use this tool? By making broad and positive
statements. By presenting his statements in simple and familiar language. By
refusing to admit, or even suggest, that there is another side to the
question.

It is a list of significant events that have happened in the past including
dates, places, what happened and why it was significant.Click here for a timeline of over 1600 events in
World history. For more go to Infoplease.

It is stories of adventure and war and romance and politics and discovery and
creative endeavors and also failures and death and plagues and famine and
natural catastrophes. To read some of these stories just insert any key words
from the timeline of history above into an internet search engine.

It is an understanding of the type of life necessitated by the needs of
everyday living in various places and times. Think in terms of not only the
needs of everyday life but of the state of public health and technology and
life expectancy and frequency of violent death or death from disease.

It is a story of advances and setbacks both in man and in the world or
universe as a whole.
It is a story of prehistory and the classical period and the dark ages and the
renaissance and the reformation and the enlightenment leading to what we now
call modern times but which in the future will be known by another name.

It is a what if? story. It invites imagination of possibilities of other
worlds.

There are a few lessons of history that I think are significant. First is the
realization that history is untrue and incomplete. It is only an
approximation of what happened and it is colored by the perspective of
participants and of historians. Remember that what is very significant from
one perspective may very well be of little consequence from a different
perspective. A private in the army was killed at the battle of Waterloo.
That was very significant to his family and friends at that time. How
significant is it to you?

Second is the realization that, contrary to popular belief, history is not
necessarily a story of advancement of civilization. There is no higher power
ensuring that our species will only improve. It can and, almost surely, will
at some time decline and probably disappear. Declines have happened in the
past and one result of the advances that have occurred is that we now have the
instruments that can lead to our own demise.

Knowledge of history also gives a sense of perspective necessary to understand
why some things are.

After Uncle Herschel married Aunt Martha he noticed that whenever she cooked a
roast she would prepare it by cutting off the end. He asked her why she did
that. "Because", said Aunt Martha, "my mother always cut the end off and she
taught me to do it that way." Uncle Herschel shrugged.

Sometime later Uncle Herschel and Aunt Martha went to her parents' home for
Sunday dinner. When the roast was served Uncle Herschel noticed that the end
had been cut off before it was cooked. Uncle Herschel asked Aunt Martha's
mother why she did that. "Because", she said, "my mother always cut the end
off and she taught me to do it that way." Uncle Herschel shrugged.

At Christmas Uncle Herschel and Aunt Martha were at the home of Aunt Martha's
grandmother. Uncle Herschel was in the kitchen and noticed the grandmother
cutting the end off a roast. Uncle Herschel asked why she did that. She
replied, "When I first got married, we went out and bought utensils to set up
housekeeping. I got a roast pan that was too small. So I've always had to
cut the end off the roast to get it to fit in my pan."

Tradition!

The main divisions of human history:

Two million years of human evolution pre-history, paleolithic
genus -Homo - Humans, neanderthals, homo erectus, and their direct ancestors - 2.5 million years ago
species -(archaic) Homo sapiens - Humans - 500,000 years ago
sub-species - Homo sapiens sapiens - Modern humans 200,000 years ago
sub-species - Neurologically modern humans - 200,000 to 70,000 years ago
(when she is ovulating the female should collect the semen of several males so
that she has a choice of sperm in the resulting sperm competition.)

Agrarian revolution about 10,000 years ago.
The two greatest mistakes - Agriculture and property ownership
The two greatest myths - God and monogamy.

The study of science began about 6,000 years ago and continued until about
1500 years ago when it was slowed by religion.

The Dark ages then lasted for about 1,000 years.

The Enlightenment occurred about 300 to 500 years ago and continues until
the present.

Life on earth represented as a year.

One month represents about 383 1/3 million years.
One day represents about 12.6 million years.
One hour represents 525,120 years.
One minute represents 8,752 years.
One second represents 145.86 years.
Assume that this is the last second of December 31.

Jan. 1 - The Earth formed about 4.6 billion years ago.

Amino acids formed in a primordial soup to create the beginnings of life.

June 12 to November 21 - 2.5 to .5 bya - Eukaryotic photosynthetic photoautotrophs. (have a cell nucleus confined within a cell membrane. The nucleus contains the cell DNA.)
first chordates and first fishes.

November 22 to November 26 - 488 to 444 mya - First land plants - non-vascular Marchantiophyta (liverworts) and fungi and mosses were probably on land.

December 7 to December 11 - 299 to 250 mya - coal forests decline and are replaced by ferns, Pteridosperms, Ginkgos and Cycads. Primitive conifer forests with Cycad and fern understory.
First reptiles.

less than 5 seconds ago - 700 to 500 years ago - the beginnings of the Enlightenment.

Human evolution represented as a year.

One month represents about 150 thousand years.
One day represents about 5 thousand years.
One hour represents 208 years.
One minute represents 3.5 years.
Assume that this is the last second of December 31.

Models of various species of Homo (humans)

January 1 to November 21 -
1.8 mya to 200 tya - Homo Erectus - Behavorial revolution - home bases, family or other small social groups, tools, fire, hunting parties, clothing.
Homo developed larger brains and became bipedal.

December 3 - 143,000 years ago - Last known Homo Erectus.
Homo erectus displaced by Homo sapiens coexisting with Neanderthals.

Anthropologist Elman Service presented a system of classification for
societies in all human cultures based on the evolution of social inequality
and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four
categories:

Gatherer-hunter bands, which are generally egalitarian.

Tribal societies in which there are some limited instances of social rank
and prestige (see Chiefdom).

Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains.

Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized,
institutional governments.

Below is my summary of ideas presented in the books "Sex at Dawn" by
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá and from "Hierarchy in the Forest" by
Christopher Boehm

Originally small bands of humans began to invent weapons and those who were
strongest and with the most weapons dominated the groups. Egalitarianism is a
hierarchy in which the weak combine forces to dominate the strong. The
egalitarian ethos is one that promotes generosity, altruism and sharing but
forbids upstartism, aggression and egoism. Ridicule, criticism, ostracism and
even execution are prevalent tactics used by subordinates in egalitarian
societies to level the social playing field. So these groups became
egalitarian.

Before the agrarian revolution small gatherer-hunter bands of cooperative and
sharing people were limited in size by the food supply in the environment.
These egalitarian bands operated by consensus and by following the leadership
of a charismatic leader or leaders. There was no power structure because in
the absence of a stratified social structure or an organized religion or the
concept of private property there were no levers of power other than personal
attractions and perceptions of security within the group. It was probably
common as the size of a band increased slowly due to low rates of
reproduction, probably supported in some cases by infanticide, that more than
one leader might arise and this would lead to the band, at some point,
splitting into two bands and going their separate ways.

This ensured both the homogeneity of the band and a plentiful supply of food
because bands did not become too large to be supported by the nearby food
supply.

If I am a member of such a band I am free to leave at any time and join
another band, if they will accept me. My band also has occasional interactions
with other nearby bands as we wander by accident or purposely into proximity.
We share a lot in common with these nearby bands because in the past we or our
ancestors probably were, with them or their ancestors, a part of a larger
band. If due to disease or accident or other reasons our band decreases in
size we may decide that we want to merge with another small band which has
similar problems. As a result there are usually between twenty and one hundred
fifty people in a band although we usually do not think in terms of numbers.

We are a social people. We share the fruits of the hunt together and we share
sexual relations and when we are not hunting, sleeping or eating or snuggling
together we talk and play together. We love to tell and listen to stories.
These stories may be social gossip or the passing down of oral histories and
traditions or stories of the gods which is how we describe the forces of
nature.

We are a physically active people usually a matriarchal society. Our children
are considered the children of the band and the children consider all the
adults in the band as their parents. Although a child may have a mother who
gave it birth, all men are considered as fathers and all women as mothers.

The agrarian revolution led to the development of the idea of private property
because if I work to plant a crop or to domesticate an animal, then I have a
proprietary interest in that crop or that animal. It belongs to me. With the
concept of the ownership of property came the idea of disposal of that
property on my death. This lead to the idea of property being inherited by my
children. But how could I know which children were mine in a society of free
sex? So came the idea of ownership of females and development of a method to
control these females to assure my paternity and the idea of suppression of
sexual promiscuity especially of females.

The idea of growing food and owning land and animals and people meant that
people began to stay in one place and form larger groups leading to towns and
cities. A population explosion began.

With the ownership and inheritance of property, societies were no longer
equalitarian because some people accumulated more property (wealth) than
others. This led to a complex social structure in society based on power which
was, in turn, based on wealth. So society became rather than a free and equal
association of like minded people, a structured civilization controlled by a
chief or a king and a ruling class. Religion evolved from just stories we told
of the escapades of the gods to a more organized structure of one powerful and
controlling and angry paternal God who issued orders through special or
favored people making up the priesthood.

So we traded our freedom for property and wealth and obesiance to Kings and
Priests. Now we could own each other. We came to believe in religion and
monogamy or polygamy usually meaning that the wealthier a man is the more
wives he could have in his harem and meaning that some men now had unlimited
sex and others had limited or no sexual relations, an unnatural state. Females
were degraded to the status of slaves. Where once all food and shelter had
been shared we now have people who are hungry and people who are homeless. We
have become a more violent, greedy, jealous and warlike people who have to
work harder and longer and we get less sex and less sleep so we have more
mental and emotional stress in our lives.

The two main myths that we came to believe were that we were to be controlled
by a god represented by priests and kings and that women were subservient to
men and had inferior sexual desires and needs. This led to the deterioration
of the human genetic pool as well as to poverty and over population which
eventually led to widespread disease and destruction of the natural
environment. Many accepted the idea that man is, by nature, monogamous which
could not be further from the truth.

Once people had settled into towns their food supply was at the mercy of the
weather. They depended on the annual harvest and, if it was not a good
harvest, could anticipate hunger in the coming year. Also, because food was
not equally shared, but was hoarded by some, the wealthy could survive or even
thrive while others were starving.

The primary vehicle of genetic improvement was not during most of man's
evolution, as in monogamy, competition for the best mate, but due to man's
promiscious past, competition within the woman's reproductive tract between
sperm from different men with the egg being fertilized by the sperm fittest to
win the race and to match the physiological needs of her body. So monogamy
limited the variety of sperm available for impregnation and together with a
more limited diet and a generally less active lifestyle decreased the vitality
of both the people and the genetic pool.

The changes in our life style and our diet caused us to have less healthy
bodies with more heart problems, cancer, and diabetes among many other
ailments. We eventually began to study science and, as a result, were able to
use technology to improve our lives and give us more leisure time and medical
advances to combat infectious disease and our other health problems. Our
leisure time is often now used with much time spent sitting and watching
screens, rather than in more active pursuits, in ways that sometimes lead to
depression and obesity and lethargy.

Ideas from the enlightenment of the 18th century were a large part of the
founding philosophy of the United States of America.

It was fostered mainly by the Protestant movement and the spread of ideas due
to the invention of the printing press.

It was a thin trickle of thought which traveled through an era otherwise
dominated by dogma and fanaticism. The 17th century was torn by witch-hunts
and wars of religion and imperial conquest. Protestants and Catholics
denounced each other as followers of Satan, and people could be imprisoned for
attending the wrong church, or for not attending any. All publications,
whether pamphlets or scholarly volumes, were subject to prior censorship by
both church and state, often working hand in hand. Slavery was widely
practiced, especially in the colonial plantations of the Western Hemisphere,
and its cruelties frequently defended by leading religious figures. The
despotism of monarchs exercising far greater powers than any medieval king was
supported by the doctrine of the "divine right of kings," and scripture quoted
to show that revolution was detested by God. Speakers of sedition or blasphemy
quickly found themselves imprisoned, or even executed. Organizations which
tried to challenge the twin authorities of church and state were banned. There
had been plenty of intolerance and dogma to go around in the Middle Ages, but
the emergence of the modern state made its tyranny much more efficient and
powerful.

The Church insisted that it was the only source of truth, that all who lived
outside its bounds were damned, while it was apparent to any reasonably
sophisticated person that most human beings on earth were not and had never
been Christians--yet they had built great and inspiring civilizations. Writers
and speakers grew restive at the omnipresent censorship and sought whatever
means they could to evade or even denounce it.

To illustrate the difference between the ideas of the enlightenment and those
which had prevailed up until that time, here is a fictional conversation
between a philosopher or thinker of the enlightenment and a religious cleric of
medieval times.

Thinker: We cannot know with certainty what is right and therefore we
must be tolerant of the beliefs of others.

Cleric: We do, of course, know what is right because we have the word
of God as written in the Bible and its interpretation by religious clerics and
scholars to tell us what is right and to keep us from wrong. We must convince
others to believe as we do or we must eliminate them. Tolerance is heresy.

Thinker: We can use our minds and reason to determine what is right by
the methods of science and experiment and evidence.

Cleric: That is arrogance in the face of God. We were put on earth to
serve the will of God and to follow his commands, not to try to determine our
own way.

Thinker: The way to determine the truth as in the guilt or innocence
of one accused of a crime is to let both sides present their evidence and let
a jury of the peers of the accused evaluate the evidence presented and
determine the truth of the matter.

Cleric: Nonsense, God will tell us whether or not the accused is
guilty by giving us a sign.

Thinker: Humans have the ability to use their reason to seek knowledge
and to determine their own beliefs about life rather than be told how to think
by the church or the state. Enlightenment means think for yourself!

Cleric: Man is an imperfect sinner and his only purpose is to fulfill
the word of God. He must be led to do this by being subservient to the
servants of God personified in the Church and he must have faith in the Church
rather than rely on his own reason.

Thinker: All human beings possess the ability to be enlightened. In
other words, humans are equal by nature. All humans are part of a “universal
community” who share a single universal human nature. Differences among people
are less important than their fundamental sameness.

Cleric: God gives special knowledge to clerics and Kings which gives
them a natural dominion over other men.

Thinker: Humanity is progressing from immaturity, superstition, and
slavery to maturity, reason, and freedom. Human history is therefore the story
of progress in the human condition.

Cleric: Men are sinners who will drift further and further from the
will of God unless held in line by rulers.

Thinker: Religion and politics should be separated. There should be
no official religion. Further, one’s method of worship should be a private
matter.

Cleric: Of course men should be forced by the church and the state to
do what is right. Religion must guide the state to see that everyone worships
as the Church dictates.

Thinker: The social organization of production and distribution becomes
a central problem for enlightenment ideologies. A society’s well-being depends
on how its economy is structured.

Cleric: Wealth belongs ultimately to the State, to God and to the
Church. The economy should be controlled by these entities.

Thinker: Government and laws must be based on the consent of the
governed.

Cleric: Government and laws must be as promulgated by the Church and
God.

Thinker: Education and the widespread distribution of knowledge are a
good thing that will help men to think for themselves.

Cleric: The only education and knowledge needed is that given by God
through the church. Any additional education or knowledge would be arrogance
and heresy.

Thinker: Men have rights given by nature.

Cleric: Men are servants of God and their lives are preordained by
God.

Thinker: The potential of the mind of man is the supreme force in the
universe.

Cleric: God is the supreme force in the universe.

Thinker: All aspects of the human and natural worlds are susceptible
of rational explanation.

One of the leading thinkers of recent decades in this field is the Dutch
economist, Angus Maddison. According to Maddison's research, Europe suffered
through zero economic growth in the centuries from 500 AD to 1500, often
referred to as the Dark Ages. Maddison shows that for a millennium there was
no rise in per capita income, which stood at an abysmally low $215 in 1500.
Further, he estimates that in the year 1000, the average infant could expect
to live to roughly the age of 24 years - and that a third would die in the
first year of life. These are global estimates, with Europe showing no
appreciable difference from the rest. Not surprisingly, per capita living
standards show no dramatic increases until the 18th-century Enlightenment -
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

While other economic historians argue that some economic growth did take place
in the late Middle Ages, they nevertheless recognize that the growth was of so
minimal a degree that it hardly improved the horrifying destitution of the
European masses. For example, the research of economist Graeme Snooks
indicates that economic growth occurred in England in the six centuries
between 1086 and 1688. If the average person in 1086 had about one-sixth the
income of the average person in 1688, he or she did not have much. . . .
English peasants in 1086 had little more than enough food to keep them alive,
and sometimes not even that. Houses were crude, temporary structures. A
peasant owned one set of clothes, best described as rags, and little else.

The superb French historian Fernand Braudel, writing about the pre-18th-
century era, states that: Famine recurred so insistently for centuries on end
that it became incorporated into man's biological regime and built into his
daily life. . . . Braudel points out, for instance, that although France was,
by standards of the day, a relatively prosperous country, it is nevertheless
believed to have suffered ten general famines during the 10th century; twenty-
six in the 11th; two in the 12th - and these are estimates that do not even
count the hundreds and hundreds of local famines. . . . Even granting that
there are severe difficulties inherent in estimating medieval living standards
with any degree of precision, the conclusion must be that what was then
considered relative prosperity was, by comparison to prior and later ages,
utter destitution.

Further, European sewage and sanitation regressed back to primitivism during
this era. Human waste products were often thrown out the window and into the
street or simply dumped in local rivers. (By contrast, ancient Rome had been
significantly more advanced: major cities of the Empire installed drainage
systems to which latrines were connected - and the wealthy enjoyed such
luxuries as indoor plumbing . . . even the indigent had access to public
baths.) With the streets strewn with garbage and running with urine and feces
- and with the same horrifying conditions permeating the rivers and streams
from which drinking water was drawn - vermin and germs multiplied, and disease
of every kind, untreatable by the primitive medical knowledge of the day,
proliferated. Between 1347 and 1350, for example, the bubonic plague - the
infamous Black Death - spread by the fleas that infest rats, ravaged Western
Europe, obliterating roughly 20 million people, fully one-third of the human
population. Norman Cantor, the leading contemporary historian of the Middle
Ages, states: The Black Death of 1348-49 was the greatest biomedical disaster
in European and possibly in world history. A Florentine writer of the era
referred to it simply as the exterminating of humanity.

Finally, the early Middle Ages witnessed a stupefying decline in levels of
education and literacy from the Roman period. In the endemic warfare of the
period, human beings lost the skill of writing and, largely, of reading. In
the time of Augustine's youth [4th century AD] . . . even a Christian got a
reasonably good classical education. A few generations later, literacy was a
rarity even among the ruling classes. For example, during the 8th century,
Charlemagne maintained that even the clergy knew insufficient Latin to
understand the Bible or to properly conduct Church services.

Andrew Coulson, a researcher in the field of educational history, points out
that whereas the Greeks were fascinated by the natural world, taking
pioneering steps in such sciences as anatomy, biology, physics, and
meteorology, the Christians replaced efforts to understand the world with an
attempt to know God; observation-based study of nature was, accordingly,
subordinated to faith-based study of scripture. A decline in learning
consequently afflicted every cognitive subject. What limited medical knowledge
had been accumulated by Greek and Roman physicians was supplanted by utter
mysticism. For example, St. Augustine believed that demons were responsible
for diseases, a tragic regression from Hippocrates. Scientific work in general
declined as interest in the physical world did. The overall result? From the
standpoint of mass education . . . the medieval era was indeed a dark age.
Despite isolated pockets of learning concentrated around the monasteries of
Europe, the overwhelming majority of the populace was uneducated and
illiterate.

Contributing to the educational debacle, in 529 the Christian emperor,
Justinian I, ruling the Eastern Empire from Constantinople and holding that
Greek philosophy was inherently subversive of Christian belief, closed all the
pagan schools of philosophy, including Plato's Academy, which, for 900 years,
had specialized in the teachings of its founder. To fully enforce his ban,
Justinian forbade any pagan to teach. (Boethius (480-525), a Christian and the
last serious philosopher for 350 years, had been educated in the great pagan
schools.) As a result, nobody in the West would have the opportunity to study
the achievements of Greek culture for six interminable centuries. As the
eminent historian, Will Durant, observed: Greek philosophy, after eleven
centuries of history, had come to an end.

W. T. Jones, the 20th century's leading historian of philosophy, succinctly
captured the essence of the decline, and of Christianity's causal role in
promoting it, when he stated: Because of the indifference and downright
hostility of the Christians . . . almost the whole body of ancient literature
and learning was lost. . . . This destruction was so great and the rate of
recovery was so slow that even by the ninth century Europe was still
immeasurably behind the classical world in every department of life. . . .
This, then, was truly a 'dark' age.

The tragic truth is that from the fall of Rome until the Medieval Renaissance
of the 12th and 13th centuries - a full six hundred years - Western Europe
suffered through a period of material penury and intellectual deprivation when
compared to both the Classical age that preceded it and the Renaissance that
followed it.

By contrast, the 18th and 19th centuries witnessed the full flowering of the
Industrial and Technological Revolutions. These were centuries not of Saint
Boniface converting the heathens, and of minor improvements to windmills and
water mills that still left men starving - but of James Watt and the steam
engine, Thomas Edison and the electric lighting system, Alexander Graham Bell
and the telephone, the Wright brothers and aviation, Henry Ford, Andrew
Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and industrial mass production of consumer
goods - and, consequently, these were centuries of skyrocketing living
standards and life expectancies. This was an era of tremendous intellectual
and material advance. The 18th and 19th centuries were a period of
extraordinary invention and innovation. The 8th and 9th centuries were not.

Philosophy seeks to answer five major questions: What is the nature of
reality? How - by what means - do men gain knowledge of it? What is the nature
of man? What is good - and what is evil? What is the ideal society? Religion,
as a particular kind of philosophy, is an attempt to answer these questions.

Regarding reality, the essence of religion is belief in metaphysical dualism -
that is, two worlds: the natural universe and a transcendent, more important
world beyond it. Since there exists no observation-based means to access a
higher world, it follows that, regarding important knowledge, faith in the
infallible truths of a revealed text provides the foundation of cognition.
Augustine's famous dictum that belief is the necessary basis of knowledge is
representative of the religious approach. Writes one scholar: The main use of
reason by the mature Augustine is unquestionably to understand what is already
believed. Man is a metaphysical biped: his soul being of the transcendent
realm and his body being of this one. A fallen creature beset with the sin of
his ancestors, his earthly flesh is prone to lust and temptation, which his
otherworldly soul must devoutly resist. The good is to place God first and
foremost in one's pantheon of values, and to unquestionably obey His every
command; the evil is to disobey. A proper society is theocratic - based on
divine commandments as interpreted by the initiated spiritual elite: the
clergy.

Religion, as an attempt to answer all the important philosophical questions of
human life, is a species of philosophy, which is its genus. It is a faith-
based, not a reason-based philosophical system. Religion can be (roughly)
defined as: a philosophical system, based in faith, not reason, upholding the
existence and supremacy of a transcendent God, who requires unquestioning
obedience from the sinful human subjects He created and governs. Religion was
the dominant, indeed, exclusive philosophical framework of the early Middle
Ages, from the 6th century until, roughly, the 12th.

A precondition of science is the view that nature is fascinating, important,
superlatively valuable - a conviction logically congruent with the secular
understanding that nature is reality. This view is incompatible with the
Christian belief that this world is debased and deficient, while the ideal
lies beyond man's earthly grasp. Science begins with observation of facts, not
the infallible pronouncements of a revealed text. Further, science (especially
its offshoots of applied science and technology) rests upon the premise that
rational beings are (at least potentially) good, that man's earthly life is of
value, that knowledge is both attainable and desirable, and that men are
worthy of elevated living standards. The idea that man should seek scientific
advancement is incompatible with the assumption that men are creatures who
are, in Augustine's pregnant utterance, foul . . . crooked . . . sordid . . .
bespotted . . . and ulcerous, overwhelmingly (and understandably) condemned to
perdition by an outraged deity.

Reason is an observation-based methodology. It does not begin with beliefs
already accepted on prejudicial grounds, and then proceed to prove their
truth. Whether studying man, the inner workings of his mind, germs, rocks,
insects, atoms, the far reaches of intergalactic space, or anything else,
reason proceeds from sensory observation by a method of logical thought
embodying Aristotle's famed Law of Non-Contradiction: No existent can be both
x and non-x at the same time and in the same respect.

Theology is the purest expression of rationalism in the sense of proceeding by
logical deduction from premises ungrounded in observable fact - deduction
without reference to reality. The so-called thinking involved here is purely
formal, observationally baseless, devoid of facts, cut off from reality.
Thomas Aquinas, for example, was history's foremost expert regarding the field
of angelology. No one could match his knowledge of angels, and he devoted far
more of his massive "Summa Theologica" to them than to physics.

Here is the tragedy of theology in its distilled essence: The employment of
high-powered human intellect, of genius, of profoundly rigorous logical
deduction - studying nothing. In the Middle Ages, the great minds capable of
transforming the world did not study the world; and so, for most of a
millennium, as human beings screamed in agony - decaying from starvation,
eaten by leprosy and plague, dying in droves in their twenties - the men of
the mind, who could have provided their earthly salvation, abandoned them for
otherworldly fantasies.

Sexual reproduction referring to species that have individuals of two sexes,
male and female, as opposed to asexual reproduction plays a significant role
in evolution because it allows for mixing of genetic material, DNA, and thus
increases diversity of offspring. Since evolution means that those
individuals best adapted to the environment will be more likely to survive
than those less well adapted more diversity means that the process of
evolution will be more efficient. This will result in a faster weeding out of
ineffective traits and propagation of more effective genes or traits.

Humans, and indeed all species, evolve in such a way as to most efficiently
propagate their genes. One disadvantage of sexual reproduction is that it
requires the copulation of two individuals of different sexes before
reproduction can take place. This requires some type of interaction between
individuals and thus leads to social relationships. It also means that one
individual on an island cannot reproduce and thus his or her genes will not
propagate. The same occurs with individuals who for either physical or social
reasons cannot breed with a sexual partner.

The human individual may not consider reproduction as one of his life's goals
but from a biological perspective, it is the only goal.

Evolution has insured that reproduction will occur by the evolution of the
benefits of sexual activity, both physical and emotional. This means that
hormonal activity makes sex feel good physically and causes, at least to some
extent, an emotional attachment to a sexual partner. Sex is therefore much
like an addiction.

Probably because of its predominate position in human life, sexual activity
has historically been the subject of religious and legal interest in most
societies. For some reason many Christian and Muslim sects have been very
antisexual in their beliefs leading to a feeling among many of their adherents
that sexual activity is at its base dirty, immoral or evil. When some sects
such as the christian Shakers carried this idea to its logical conclusion and
banned sexual activity among their members the process of evolution, as would
be expected, led to the demise of those sects.

In other sects this antisexual proclivity has led to prohibition of any sexual
activity which can not lead to reproduction. This includes masturbation,
homosexuality, oral and anal sex and sexual activity outside a relationship
approved by the church or the society.

Propagation of genes requires not just that offspring be produced but also
that those offspring live long enough to themselves reproduce and that their
offspring do also. Since human babies are not precocious they require care
for an extended period after birth. This care is best provided by more than
one person. So it may take a village to raise a child but in the absence of
that social environment it needs, at least, a couple. Sexual involvement
leads to emotional attachment so it is natural for the male and female to
become a couple and to work together to raise their offspring. While the
female, being the one giving birth, usually has primary responsibility for the
offspring the emotional attachment of the male is often almost as great. But
there is also the evolutionary push to propagate genetic material as widely as
possible so this force tends to oppose monogamy. For this reason human
societies often have the institution of marriage, being a religious or secular
ceremony meant to formalize the couple relationship as monogamous with the
force of social pressure on the couple.

Now for a theory about the reasons for the common antisexual bias in many
religious sects. Since humans are not precocious they have a period after
birth known as childhood in which they have to learn physical and social
behavior. This means that they grow up feeling that they are not adults and
therefore imperfect. Since the focus of adults is usually caring for the
family they take life more seriously than children. Children learn by
playing. This play is often physical and can lead to disruption of normal
family life such as breaking a window or creating messes (muddy shoes) which
need to be cleaned up, etc. This puts stress on the family and often leads to
admonitions from the adults. This means that children often grow up in an
environment in which they are taught that they are subservient to adults and
are not as perfect.

When these children become adults they are apt to believe in such things as
superior beings with overall authority called kings or gods and with the idea
that fun such as they had as children is somehow evil. Basically many feel
that they are inferior or evil beings (original sin) and that they do not
deserve pleasure and if they do anything which is pleasurable this is evidence
of their evil being. Since one of the greatest pleasures is sexual activity
because we have evolved in that way, then that activity becomes, itself, evil.
So it turns out, pleasure causes feeling of guilt.

The best evidence for this theory would be the more extreme examples of
religious sects such as Puritans, or Amish groups. They seem to feel that
anything which gives pleasure is an affront to a punishing God and that the
individual must be completely subservient to such a God.

According to the New York Times:

The Supreme Court on June 27, 2011 struck down on First Amendment grounds a
California law that banned the sale of violent video games to children.

It defined violent games as those "in which the range of options available to
a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an
image of a human being in a way that was patently offensive, appealed to
minors deviant or morbid interests and lacked serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value."

The definitions tracked language from decisions upholding laws regulating
sexual content. In 1968, in Ginsberg v. New York, the court allowed limits on
the distribution to minors of sexual materials like what it called "girlie
magazines" that fell well short of obscenity, which is unprotected by the
First Amendment.

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm,"
Justice Scalia wrote, "but that does not include a free-floating power to
restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

Depictions of violence, Justice Scalia added, have never been subject to
government regulation.

Justice Scalia rejected the suggestion that depictions of violence are subject
to regulation as obscenity. "Because speech about violence is not obscene," he
wrote, "it is of no consequence that California's statute mimics the New York
statute regulating obscenity-for-minors that we upheld in the Ginsberg
decision."

The justices had, moreover, agreed to hear the case just after issuing their
8-to-1 decision last year in United States v. Stevens, striking down a federal
law making it a crime to buy and sell depictions of animal cruelty like dog
fighting videos.

Only a few kinds of speech, like incitement, obscenity and fighting words, are
beyond the protection of the First Amendment, Justice Scalia said, adding that
the court would not lightly create new excluded categories.

Justice Alito said the majority opinion was too quick to dismiss differences
between current video games and other media.

"The objective of one game is to rape a mother and her daughters", he wrote.
In another, "players attempt to fire a rifle shot into the head of President
Kennedy as his motorcade passes by the Texas School Book Depository."

From Wikipedia: In a legal context, the term obscenity is most often used to
describe expressions (words, images, actions) of an explicitly sexual nature.

According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, that which is obscene (i.e.:
an obscenity) is quite simply defined as repulsive, or disgusting to the
senses.

So, if I understand this correctly, according to the United States Supreme
Court, it is permissible to enact laws protecting children from harm. But
harm is defined as depictions of a sexual nature but such things as depictions
of animal cruelty and killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting a
human being in a way that is patently offensive is not harmful. In other
words, seeing people naked or fucking each other is harmful to children but
seeing them harm or kill animals or people is not. Due to my use of the word
"fuck" in this book, then this book would, according the the United States
Supreme Court, be obscene and therefore harmful to children. However, I
suppose, if I replaced the word "fuck" with the word "kill" throughout the
book then it would no longer be harmful to children.

Its interesting to read factoids about sexual standards of other cultures, it
throws into perspective how narrow our views tend to be in western culture!

The Australian Aborigines temporarily exchange wives as a gesture of friendship
and goodwill at the ceremonies where puberty rites are held for their
youngsters. The wives often initiate this, enjoying the change of ''scenery''
as well.

Homosexual relationships are accepted practice among the men and boys of the
Siwans of Africa. The few who do not participate are considered peculiar.

Lesu children are premitted to watch adults, other than their parents,
copulate.

The Ila people of Africa encourage their children to fully develop their
sexual capabilities, permitting them any form of sexual expression they wish
to partake in. It is claimed there are no virgins older than age 10 in this
society!

Upon reaching puberty, boys of Mangaia (one of the Cook Islands) are given
sexual instruction - including many details of positioning, cunnilingus and
delaying their own satisfaction so that their partner women may experience
multiple orgasms.

In a survey in 1949 of 849 societys, 75 percent were found to permit
premarital intercourse.

Of course, in America in 1988 the stats showed that 70 percent of married
American women had indulged in premarital intercourse as well . . . they are
just supposed to feel *guilty* about it here!

Some Hindu sects require a priest to deflower a virgin before she consummates
her marriage with her husband.

The most common universal form of marriage is actually Polygyny - one husband
with two or more wives. Of those 849 societies, 70 percent are polygynous.

The least prevalent form is polyandry (one wife with two or more husbands),
only 4 of 849 societys practice this.

Polynesian societies have no words for "obscene", "indecent'', "impure'' or the
like. Sex is never considered a source of shame or embarrassment.

Because eating and intercourse each involve entering bodily orifices, the
Aweikoma of Brazil use the same term for both activities.

The inhabitants of Bali, and the Lepcha of Sikkim have no elaborate rituals
or practices of seduction. If sex is desired, one only need ask for it - this
is true for both men and women.

If a Goajiro woman of Colombia successfully trips a man during a ceremonial
dance, he is required to have intercourse with her.

Pacific-dwelling Marquesan men have acquired the ability to prolong their
erections indefinitely until their partner is fully satisfied. It is considered
normal for the women to experience at least 3 orgasms.

During the latter stages of a Hidatsa woman's pregnancy, her husband is allowed
intercourse with her sister.

Its not uncommon for the Aranda of Australia to copulate three to five times
nightly, sleeping for short intervals in between activity.

While our computers are based off of a complex pattern of electricity, living
things are based off of a complex pattern of chemicals.

for males:

During the first state of orgasm - arousal - there is released into
the bloodstream Adrenaline and Noradrenaline (potent body stimulants), which
causes arousal (among several other effects).

Heart rate increases, blood flow increases, etc.

During orgasm, into your bloodstream are released: Prolactin (lactation
hormone), Oxytocin (substance related to trust and niceness), Phenethylamine
(substance related to love, can be found in chocolate), and Endorphin (related
to pain regulation - opiates work on these to cause its effects.)

At any given time these may also cause an increased amount of serotonin
flowing through the body, improving mood (mdma works on serotonin to cause its
effects, which of course is to feel really good.)

As a result, chemically, you lactate, feel an overwhelming sense of trust,
your heart races and blood pressure increases, you feel a sense of love, and
experience a rush similar to a short but strong dose of morphine. All the
while you feel really happy :)

It is a result of phenethylamine and endorphin that we crave orgasm. They are
addictive. If you ever wondered how hard it would be to quit heroin, imagine
how hard it would be for you never to have sex again and see where you stand.
Phenethylamine is also released during states of love, not only orgasm,
albeit they are closely intertwined (the 'butterfly' feeling you get when you
ask somebody out.)

I would imagine Phenethylamine would be released for longer periods of time
than the others if one is with a partner. I would also imagine it's blocked or
in lower amounts to those who just want sex, not love. Very potent **** :)

From Wikipedia:

A U.S. study by Alfred Kinsey found that 75% of the
participants stated that there was never nudity in the home when they were
growing up, 5% of the participants said that there was "seldom" nudity in the
home, 3% said "often", and 17% said that it was "usual". The study found that
there was no significant difference between what was reported by men and by
women with respect to frequency of nudity in the home.

In a 1995 review of the literature, Paul Okami concluded that there was no
reliable evidence linking exposure to parental nudity to any negative
effect. Three years later, his team finished an 18-year longitudinal study
that showed that, if anything, such exposure was associated with slight
beneficial effects, particularly for boys.

The trend in some European countries (for instance Germany, Finland and the
Netherlands) is to allow both genders to bathe together naked. Many German
spas allow mixed nude bathing. For example the Friedrichsbad in Baden-Baden
has designated times when mixed nude bathing is permitted. There may be some
older German bathhouses, such as Bad Burg, which remain segregated by gender,
but this is the exception rather than the rule. Most German (not to mention
French, Spanish and Greek) beaches and swimming pools offer FKK (clothing-
optional) areas. In general, continental Europeans have a more relaxed
attitude about nudity than is seen in the British-influenced world. Some have
attributed this difference to the influence of Queen Victoria's husband
Albert, who was raised in a very restricting religious sect (see Victorian
morality).

The sauna, originating from Finland, is attended nude in its source
country as well as in most Scandinavian and in the German-speaking
countries of Europe. This is true even when a swimsuit must
be worn in the swimming pool area of the same complex. Saunas are very
common in modern Finland, where there is one sauna for every three people
and became very popular in the remainder of Europe in recent decades. Gender
segregation is more the exception than the rule in modern European sauna
facilities.

Naturism is a lifestyle in harmony with nature, expressed through
social nudity, and characterised by self-respect of people with different
opinions and of the environment.

At one end of the spectrum are the nudists who just enjoy a nude life style,
and at the other are the naturists, who have deeply held beliefs and see
communal nudity as just one of many important principles.

It is not clear when humans started wearing clothes. Anthropologists postulate
the adaptation of animal skins and vegetation into coverings to protect the
wearer from cold, heat and rain, especially as humans migrated to new
climates; alternatively, covering may have been invented first for other
purposes, such as magic, decoration, cult, or prestige, and later found to be
practical as well. For men and women, public nudity was at least permissible
in ancient Sparta, and customary at festivals.

In some hunter-gatherer cultures in warm climates, near-complete nudity has
been, until the introduction of Western culture, or still is, standard
practice for both men and women. In some African and Melanesian cultures, men
going completely naked except for a string tied about the waist are considered
properly dressed for hunting and other traditional group activities. In a
number of tribes in the South Pacific island of New Guinea, the men use hard
gourdlike pods as penis sheaths. Yet a man without this "covering" could be
considered to be in an embarrassing state of nakedness. Among the Chumash
people of southern California, men were usually naked, and women were often
topless. Native Americans of the Amazon Basin usually went nude or nearly
nude; in many native tribes, the only clothing worn was some device worn by
men to clamp the foreskin shut. However, other similar cultures have had
different standards. For example, other native North Americans avoided total
nudity, and the Native Americans of the mountains and west of South America,
such as the Quechuas, kept quite covered.

In 1498, at Trinity Island, Trinidad, Christopher Columbus found the women
entirely naked, whereas the men wore a light girdle called guayaco. At the
same epoch, on the Para Coast of Brazil, the girls were distinguished from the
married women by their absolute nudity. The same absence of costume was
observed among the Chaymas of Cuman, Venezuela, and Du Chaillu noticed the
same among the Achiras in Gabon

What is information? A rock is real (maybe). A description or depiction or
picture of that rock is information. The whole of existence can be described
and that is information. However, the whole of existence at this point in
time is not the same as the whole of existence at another point in time.
Maybe both exist simultaneously. Maybe not. If not, then the only record of
existence of the universe at another time is in the form of preserved
information. Most would say that Genghis Khan does not exist now. He does
exist, however, in the form of history books and depictions. This information
is not the same though as the actual man in the flesh. Information is usually
not complete or necessarily accurate.

Genghis Khan

Information about geological history is preserved by nature in the form of
rock formations and layers. Information necessary to reproduce individual
cells or complete individuals is preserved chemically in the form of DNA. In
the past humans preserved information in the form of libraries and museums.
Now much information is preserved electronically in the form of computer
files.

Information usually consists of records of existence at a certain point in
time or change over time (history). What existed, what changes occurred
during a specified period of time and what then existed after those changes?

The prehistoric nomad went fishing and, when he returned, compared the size of
his pile of fish to the size of the pile of his neighbor's catch. Later he
arranged his fish in a row and compared the length of the row to that of his
neighbor. At some point he began to compare the number of fish he caught or
the number of wives he had to that of his neighbor. These types of
interactions eventually led to the use of abstract symbols meaning language
and the concept of numbers so that one could communicate with another without
the physical presence of the fish or wives being discussed. After more time
passed abstract symbols for the spoken word and for numbers led to the
development of writing and math, at least as far as addition and subtraction.
This became the basis for information storage.

The first step in IT is to develop a method to collect and store information.
First you count the number of cattle you own, then you write the information
on a piece of paper together with the date. Or you type your novel into a
word processor and store it on a hard disk drive. Data is amassed or
collected or created and then input into a storage medium and then stored.

Stored data can be processed and analyzed. This can include such things as
comparison, filtering, aggregating, statistical analysis, summarizing, and
sorting.

The processed data can then be presented in terms of reports, tables, graphs,
pictures, or by other methods.

So we have

data input

data storage

data processing

data output in various formats

Data can exist or be stored in many forms. Examples include:

geological rock records

chemical records such as DNA

written records including text, music, numbers

drawings and other depictions

photographs

videos

sound recordings

if the technology were perfected, data involving the other senses; taste,
smell, and feeling; could also be stored and reproduced.

As an example of IT, sound exists as alternate compressions and relaxations in
volumes causing waves in a medium such as air. Sound can be caused by
movement of objects in the medium such as strumming a guitar string or a crash
of vehicles on the highway. This sound can be captured and stored
electronically by a microphone which converts the sound waves in the air to an
abstract code of electronic signals. These can be magnetically stored on a
tape or a computer disk drive or otherwise. The human body captures these
sound waves by means of the eardrum which sends nerve impulses to the brain
which interprets these nerve impulses as music or noise and stores them as
memories.

In the case of computerized records, which this discussion will now emphasize,
sound files can be reproduced by means of an output device (speaker) so that a
concert or a car wreck can be heard by any number of people at any number of
locations at any time after the original sound was produced. This also
applies, of course, to any other type of information stored.

Smells are the interpretation by the brain of nervous impulses sent to the
brain from the nose which is a collector of chemical molecules in the air. If
we use a mechanical chemical analysis device to collect such molecules from
the air and convert this data to electrical codes, we could transmit and store
codes corresponding to odors and store these as odor files in a computer. If
we then invent a chemical synthesizer which can take these electrical codes as
a template for producing the same mix of chemical molecules in the air, we
could then reproduce odors just as we now do sounds.

So for example:

Input Device

Output Device

Microphone

Speaker

Keyboard

Printer

Camera

Monitor or Television

Musical Keyboard

Midi Player

Mechanical chemical sensor

Chemical synthesizer

Common types of computer data files

audio

video

picture

text

Databases consist of interelated data files.

Each file consists of a number of records with each record pertaining to an
entity together with the properties of that entity.

For instance a customer file would consist of one record for each customer.
That record would consist of a number of fields, one field, for each property
describing or pertaining to that entity or customer.

4 bytes - pointer to previous record in Transactions.dat for this same
customer

etc.

So record number 1 in Customer.dat might have the name John Doe together with
his address and phone number. That record might point to record number 156 in
the Transactions.dat file.

Record number 156 in the Transactions.dat file might show that it was for
customer number 1 and dated October 22, 2011 for $149.95 for the purchase of a
chain saw. That record might point to record number 110 in Transactions.dat

Record number 110 in the Transactions.dat file might show that it was for
customer number 1, dated August 5, 2011 for $16.25 for the purchase of a
hammer. That record might point to record 0 (zero) showing that there were no
other transactions for customer number 1.

Notice that a record in a database can store various types of data. The
example above included text, date, and numeric data.

If we want to include in the database a picture of our customers, we could
take a picture of John Doe with a digital camera, store it in the computer as
a jpg file which refers to a specific format for storing picture data and
store that picture under the name 1-a.jpg. The number, 1, telling us that the
picture file is a picture of customer number 1 and the letter, a, designating
the first such picture of him, so that if we had other pictures, they could be
named 1-b.jpg, 1-c.jpg, etc.

The power of a computer is derived from its speed, its ability
to manipulate information, and its ability to store large
amounts of information. This information is stored in the
working memory of the computer in the state of electrical
switches and in external memory as magnetic images. In either
case information is stored by the fact that a given electrical
switch can be in either of two states or a given area of storage
can be magnetized or not.

Think of storing information by a long series of switches each
of which can be on or off or each of which can represent the
number zero, off, or one, on. Now if you have perhaps 800
million switches, how can you store information? It was decided
that information could be stored by means of using 8 switches at
a time. A particular sequence of 8 switches would be called a
byte. One individual switch would be a bit. A word would be 16
or 32 bits depending on the computer and its capability for
handling information.

If the fundamental unit of storage is to be 8 bits then it is
possible to store 256 different combinations of off and on
conditions in a byte. Each bit can be in either of two
conditions, and 2 multiplied by itself 8 times gives 256. Some
examples are:

So we have a method for storing the integers 0 thru 255 in a
single byte. We can now set up coding systems which can be
interpreted by the program or set of instructions in our
computer to store different types of information.

One of the most widely used coding systems is ASCII.
That stands for American Standard Code for Information
Interchange and is used for storing mostly alphanumeric
information in text format. In this system each alphanumeric
and punctuation key on the standard keyboard is assigned a code
number from 32 to 127. The space bar is 32, the exclamation
point is 33, quotation marks are 34 etc. The capital A is 65
and the lower case z is 122. The numbers from 0 to 31 are called
control characters and are used to send control codes to
printers and other output devices. For example control code 12
tells the printer to feed to the top of the next page. 10 is a
line feed. 13 is a carriage return. 8 is a backspace. 9 is a
tab character. 7 rings the printer's bell. 0 is a null or
nonprinting character. 26 is a character signifying the end of
a file of text characters. The codes from 128 to 255 were left
to be defined by each computer manufacturer and are called
extended codes.

Following are the codes for an IBM PC compatible computer:

If numbers are to be stored, an integer less than 256 can be
stored in one byte. 256 times 256 or numbers up to 65535 can be
stored in two bytes. If it is necessary that the integers to be
stored have a positive or negative sign then numbers from -32767
to +32767 can be stored in two bytes. It is also possible to
store floating decimal point numbers accurate to seven
significant digits in four bytes and floating decimal point
numbers accurate to sixteen significant digits in eight bytes.

If a picture consists of 320 pixels (dots) in width by 200
pixels deep (a common resolution) and up to 256 colors are
defined for the picture then one pixel can be stored per byte
and the entire picture can be stored in 320 X 200 or 64,000
bytes. It would be up to the application program of course to
instruct the computer to place these pixels on the monitor
screen in the proper colors to recreate the picture.

Sounds can be stored in terms of the sound frequencies and
durations of sound required to recreate a given sound and proper
programs can output signals through a digital to analog
converter, an amplifier and a speaker system to recreate sounds.

So it is possible to store large amounts of a variety of
different kinds of information in a computer system. Of course
it is necessary to have application programs to interpret and
manipulate this data as well as to accept it from input devices
and send it to output devices.

The information stored in a computer, besides the data types
described above, can also be a program or set of instructions to
the computer. A program would be interpreted by the ALU of the
computer. More on this later.

Both data and programs must be stored in a disk file or external
long term storage when not in use. This is done by storing a
series of magnetic impulses to represent the data. Special
programs called the DOS or disk operating system enable the
computer to carry out the functions of storing and reading these
files. Typically a hard disk drive is capable of storing 32
million bytes. The information on this drive is stored in areas
called files and identified by name. For instance the files on
a disk drive might be as follows:

Each file name can be up to 8 alphanumeric characters long with
up to 3 alphanumeric characters as an extension. Program files
usually have an extension of COM, EXE, or BAT. For example the
file HANGMAN.EXE above is a program file which, when loaded into
the computer, will enable the computer to read the data files
which have the WRD extension and contain words and play the game
HANGMAN with the computer operator.

The areas on a disk drive are subdivided into subdirectories and
then subdivided again. In the example above the directory of
files listed is a third level subdirectory.

Storage devices such as disk drives are usually labeled A
through Z, with A and B denoting floppy disk drives and C
through Z denoting hard disk drives although some of these may
be physically located on other computers and accessed through a
computer network system.

Files may be accessed by the computer either sequentially or
randomly. Program files are usually loaded into the computer's
RAM memory sequentially in their entirety. Text files are often
read in sequentially one line at a time. These files usually
have variable length records with a combination ASCII code 10
and 13 designating the end of the line and a code 26 designating
the end of the file.

Random access files have records of fixed length. For instance
suppose a file called MEMBERS.DAT is created to contain the
list of members of the Saturday Afternoon Reader's Club. It
might have a fixed record length of 100 bytes meaning that the
first 100 bytes in the file contains the record for member
number 1, etc. The file structure might be as follows.
Each line in this record description is called a field.

Thus if Mary Brown is member number 5 and it is desired to find
her birth month, the computer would simply read 100 bytes from
the file MEMBERS.DAT starting at byte number 401. When this
record had been loaded into memory it would only be necessary to
read the byte at offset 94 to get Mary's birth month.

Above is a example of an assembly language program to get a
keypress from 1 to 9 from the keyboard. The program is written
by the programmer as shown under the columns "assembly language"
and "comments". He then has an assembler read and assemble the
program into machine language. An assembler is a computer
program which can interpret an assembly language file and
convert it to machine language complete with memory locations.
Usually the assembly language program would be named something
like OPT1TO9.ASM and the output from the assembler would be a
file like OPT1TO9.COM or OPT1TO9.EXE. When the program is
loaded into memory the data in memory would be as shown in the
following table labeled "memory dump".

The memory location 21AA:0100 is actually determined by
multiplying the number 21AA (HEX) by 16 (decimal) and adding 100
(HEX). That's because that the chip used in IBM-PC compatible
computers loads programs at the beginning of 16 byte paragraphs
of memory. Memory locations are referred to as the offset in
bytes from the beginning of the paragraph. Programs generally
begin at offset 100 because the first 100H bytes (256 in
decimal) are reserved for information needed by the computer and
are called the Program Segment Prefix (PSP). The assembler
actually only determines the offset memory locations and the
segment (paragraph) location is determined by the DOS (Disk
Operating System) as the program is loaded from disk.

To write an assembly language program the programmer must know
the mnemonics for the particular chip and assembler he is using.
Mnemonics are the language understood by the assembler like the
mnemonic, "MOV AH,09", which means to move the Hexidecimal
number 9 into the AH register of the chip. The comments in a
program are for the programmer's own use and are ignored by the
assembler.

BIOS, DOS, and Interrupts

Because computers manufactured by different companies and the
components they are made from may vary, each PC compatible has a
series of machine language mini programs built into its ROM,
(Read Only Memory). These programs, actually subroutines, are
called the BIOS, (Basic Input/Output System). They handle all
interaction between the ALU and the IO devices built into the
system.

These routines are used by setting certain memory registers in
the ALU chip and calling an Interrupt. The memory registers
include AX, BX, CX, and DX as well as others. Each memory
register is a set of two byte wide locations within the ALU
chip. The AX register, for example, is made up of the AL, (Low
order) byte and the AH, (High order) byte.

There can be as many as 256 interrupts available to carry out
various functions. For instance interrupt 10H (16 decimal)
provides functions to control the video display, interrupt 16H
provides keyboard access functions, and interrupt 21H provides a
plethora of MS-DOS functions. AH is set with the function
number before calling the interrupt. For instance function 9 in
interrupt 21H is a function to display a string of characters on
the video. If this function is called, it is assumed that the
DX register will point to the memory location where the string
of characters begins and that the string will be terminated by a
24H character which is a $. This is illustrated in the first
three instructions in the assembly language program above.

The disk operating system is the computer program which is
loaded into memory upon initial startup of the system and which
remains in memory, at least in part, during the entire time the
system is powered up. It provides access through the BIOS to a
number of commands to load programs from disk, execute programs,
and provide various disk management and other I/O functions.

Besides these the DOS can execute any other EXE, COM, or BAT
program if the program's name is entered at the DOS prompt.

Higher Level Languages

Although assembly language provides the most speed and the most
efficient use of memory of any programming language, it is also
the most difficult in which to program. This is because it is
the most primitive language next to the manual system of simply
calculating the bytes to put into memory for a program and
setting the memory locations. For speed and ease of programming
a number of higher level languages have been developed over the
years. These include BASIC, C, and Pascal.

Although higher level languages are easier to understand and use
they result in larger and slower programs than does assembly
language. The most efficient higher level language in these
terms is C, but it is also more difficult to use than some other
languages.

Let us discuss BASIC as a commonly available example of higher
level languages. Source code written in the BASIC language for
the above program might look like this:

This very small program takes up 74 bytes in interpreted BASIC,
but only 38 bytes in machine language and will operate much
faster in machine language. Since BASIC can be used as an
interpreted program or BASIC source code can be compiled into
machine language, this program could be used in either of two
ways. If it were compiled by a basic compiler the output would
be a machine language EXE program which would take more memory
space, 2400 bytes, but would run much faster than if
interpreted. To use an interpreter the BASIC language
interpreter would have to be loaded into memory as a program to
be run. It would then load, interpret and execute the above
program from the source code.

Another type of program which can be executed by the DOS is a
batch program. This is simply a series of DOS internal commands
and EXE, COM, or BAT files which can be listed and run in
sequence.

An example batch program would be:

:A
BASIC INTEREST
GOTO END

:B
CHESS
GOTO END

:END

In the MS-DOS world some of the extensions at the end of file
names have standardized meanings as follows:

EXE - An execute program which can be executed from DOS

COM - A command program which can be executed from DOS

BAT - A batch file of DOS commands which can be executed in
sequence from DOS.

BAS - A BASIC program which can be compiled or interpreted.

ASM - An assembly language program which can be assembled.

C - Source code for a C program which can be compiled.

PAS - Source code for a Pascal program which can be compiled.

TXT - An ASCII file

DOC - An ASCII file

So all that is necessary to make a computer do whatever you want
is to know the syntax and language of one or several of the
above languages and plan, write, and debug the program.

Social, Family, and Historical Relationships

SFHR is an expanded and more relevant computer program than standard
genealogy programs. It emphasizes relationships of the individual,
social, family, and historical, rather than family trees. Five
generation family trees are, however, a subset of this program.

Planned but not implemented are expansion of the SFHR database
to include, for each individual, medical and financial databases
as well as DNA mapping significant markers. The medical
database would include dates and places of medical diagnoses and
procedures. The financial database would include dates,
amounts, vendors, and descriptions of all financial transactions
affecting the individual's net worth. This would enable a
personal history to include medical conditions and net worth
changes at each time period of a person's life. It also would
enable cross references of medical, social, financial and DNA
relationships among individuals. Also planned is UPD -
Universal Person Database Index - to find the same person in
different databases.

Reports on individuals and groups include history reports, data sheets,
and narrative reports. Global history reports are also available.
The system includes consistency checks, global text searches, research
reports, GEDCOM import & export and html export.

Includes space for:

Family

Great Grandparents

Grandparents

Great Uncles & Aunts

1st cousins once removed

2nd cousins

Parents

Adoptive parents

Uncles & Aunts

1st cousins

1st cousins once removed

Siblings

Nieces & Nephews

Great Nieces & Nephews

Individual

Spouses

Children

Grandchildren

Great Grandchildren

Social Relations

Lovers

Friends

Acquaintances

Coworkers

Business Associates

Clients & Customers

Professionals

Tradesmen

Politicians

Enemies

& up to 20 others

Technological progress in:

Transportation

Communications

Food Preparation

Entertainment

Health Care

News

War Making

Navigation

Business Computation

Construction

Payments

& up to 19 others

History

Sports

Politics

War

States admission

Countries created

Inventions & technology

Deaths

Space

Arts

America

England

China

Africa

& up to 17 others

And on each individual person:

Full name, sex, birth and death date, and profession

Place of birth, death, and interment

Family and social relations

Links to pictures and sound as well as documents, videos
and application programs

Education

Physical characteristics and contact data

Life history including dates, places, and incidents such as:

Places of residence

Churches and schools attended

Work history & military service

Health & illnesses

Any other significant events

Custom fields and flags

And for each item above, notes, sources, research notes & documents

File Structure of SFHR Program

SFHRinfo - 300 bytes per record

Setup of program including parameters for reports. 11 records.

SFHRtree - 300 bytes per record

One record for each individual with all properties for that person and
indexes to other files.

SFHRtext - 200 bytes per record

Text of important dates in each person's life and notes, documents and
other pertinent information. Allows expansion of personal records as needed
without having to expand the length of individual records.

SFHRrela - 160 bytes per record

Relationships index linking individual records by category of
relationships and time period.

SFHRmm - 180 bytes per record

Paths to multimedia files such as pictures, video, audio for each person.
Allows expansion of associated multimedia records as needed without having to
expand the length of individual records.

SFHRsrce - 220 bytes per record

Freeform text for source records to support text and relationship file
records.

SFHRindx - 40 bytes per record

Date indexes for all dates in the database by year as well as name
indexes and indexes to sources. 10,000 records. 4 byte floating point index
valid up to 6 significant digits or 999,999 records. Limits the database to
indexing one million people or sources or years.

SFHRtech - 600 bytes per record

30 records with 20, 30 char items per record. Each item 22 char
text + 4 char beg year +4 char ending year ascii. Used to indicate beginning
and ending year of 30 classes of technology innovation with 20 inventions per
class.

General Ledger, Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, and Payroll for
small business use. This program package has several unique features such as
extra fast data entry, ability to keep number and quantity data by account as
well as dollar amounts, profit center accounting, and other features. Has an
add-on inventory control module. Click here for a description of accounting.

DD - Development Database

A system to integrate with the PGAS accounting system to keep track of lot
sales on a land development, payment schedules, and payments by buyers, and
generate reports of unpaid amounts, total sales, etc.

TMBRCRUZ - Timber Cruise

For foresters, a system to input raw field data collected by sampling
methods or 100% cruise and to print out stand and stock tables as well as
timber value tables by selected criteria of size, species, strata, or cut,
leave, cull designations. Does a statistical analysis of the collected data
and calculates additional plots needed for a selected error range. I plan to
expand this system to use growth models to project stand growth.

SURVEY - Land surveying program

uses field data from text file to balance latitudes and departures,
calculate area by DMD method, calculate error and line of closure, subdivide,
and export to CAD program for map.

INTEREST

A program to calculate payments on money borrowed at various interest
rates, repayment periods, and payment frequency. Prints amortization
schedules.

INTEREST II

This program looks for a text file in the same directory as the program
named "intinfo.txt". That file should include the basic information for interest calculations:

NAME=YOUR NAME HERE
PN=100000 principal
IN=.07 annual interest rate
YRS=30 term of loan in years
PPY=12 payments per year
DA=08/05/10 date of loan

The program uses the data from that file to create another text file
in the same directory. That output text file is named "loan.txt".
It gives information about the loan including payment amounts for
various interest rates and terms of loan and an amortization schedule.

To use a schedule of payments already made, create a text file
called "payments.txt" in the same directory"
as this program. This file should have the date of payment in the left
column followed by one or more spaces and the amount of the payment.
example: 07/01/10 1500.94
Show all the payments that have been made on this loan, one per line.

This program will then create a text file named "balances.txt"
in the same directory showing balances remaining after each payment.

TIMECARD

- A program to figure total time worked by times input from a time card.
Useful for bookkeepers doing payroll calculations.

APPT - Appointment program.

A calendar program useful for scheduling appointments up to 100 days in
advance. Specifically designed to give a full screen page to keep multiple
appointment details for each day.

LABELS

A label printing program - set up label size and number across,
then type in label to be printed and number to be printed.

Personal Programs

NUMBERS

A program to help a touch typing student practice typing numbers.

TUTOR

written to help drill my son on foreign language in high school,
but can be used for any kind of drill of terms to be memorized. Put in terms
and definitions (ex. english and german equivalents) as you learn them by
chapter or other category. The program can then drill you in any of four ways:

Computer gives you term

Computer gives you definition

You give computer term

You give computer definition

Once a large database of terms and definitions is developed this program can
be useful in a number of ways.

MATHDRIL

A program to drill elementary school students in math exercises.

RETIRE

A retirement calculator to calculate the amount that must be saved per
month to allow for a specific retirement age and income and estate.

BMI - Body Mass Index

input your height in feet and inches and learn from the chart whether you
are overweight or underweight and what is the ideal weight for your height.

FRAC

5 small programs to make random graphic patterns on the screen.

GENES

a simulation of genetic distribution in a population.

MANDEL1

draws the mandelbrot set. What else?

CHART

draws graphs of conic sections and of a million random numbers by segment.

LIMERICK

returns a random limerick.

NUGGET

returns a random nugget of wisdom.

Games

WORDS

type in letters to unscramble the letters of a 5 to 8 letter word picked
from a 30,000 word dictionary. Score based on time, number of tries and word
length.

100CARDS

play a game of cards guessing whether the next card from a special deck
will be higher or lower than the one before. Double your winnings with each
correct guess. Play against any one of several computer generated
personalities.

STUD

This is a game in which you play stud poker against up to 8
computer opponents. The game can be configured by means of two
configuration files.

The first file, GLOBALxx.std, sets the type of stud poker
including number of cards (5 to 9) and whether each card is to
be up or down, whether it is to be personal or common, and
whether a betting interval will follow.

It also defines the names of the hands and the probability of
folding based on card score for fold, keep, or best for pre flop
betting by the computer opponents. It also can set a path for
the players configuration file and set a test flag for
debugging.

The name of the global configuration file can be changed by
putting the path to a new configuration file on the command line
when invoking the STUD program. In this way Texas Holdem can be
changed to seven card stud or five card stud or any other valid
possibility.

The second configuration file, specific for each human player by
name, is named PLAYER.STD where PLAYER is the name of the player
input by the human at the beginning of the program. The default
name is PLAYER.

This configuration file keeps the names of the players in the
game, their stack size and the number of hands they have won.
It keeps count of the number of hands played and sets the
maximum number of hands before stack and hand counts are reset.

It defines whether hints to computers opponent's hands are to be
given and in how much detail (0, or 4-9), the size of the big
blind, and the ante. It also defines by means of three
constants the circumstances and probability that a computer
opponent will raise or fold.

The screen also shows the number of cards to be dealt for the
hand and the maximum hint number for the hand. Before the flop
the screen shows a hint number up to the maximum for each
computer opponent based on the strength of his hand. After the
flop that column shows the total bet by that opponent, which is
the amount at risk if he loses the hand.

STUD2

I wrote the above program to play stud poker variations including Texas Holdem with
one player against from 1 to 8 computer opponents. This program included
algorithms to deal hands, to evaluate hands and to determine winners.

I realized that these algorithms could also be useful to use the computer to
play simulated Holdem games and analyse the results. So I set up a program to
do so. I set it to deal about 1,000,000 hands and analyse the results. These
could be set for any number of players at the table. I ran the program once
each for player numbers from 2 through 9. That meant that the program dealt
and analysed 1,000,000 hands eight times.

DEAL

Deal or no Deal

NIMROD

A more complex game of "Hunt the Wumpus" in which the player wanders
around in a three dimensional maze to find and shoot various animals and
mythic creatures and encounters various obstacles on the quest.

RIDE

Let it Ride - a poker type game.

SKUNK

A game in which the player picks from a number of doors each of which
gains or loses points until he picks the skunk door which ends the game and
loses all points. The trick is to stop with as many points as possible before
hitting the skunk door.

FFS - Forest Fire Simulator

a game/simulator which simulates the job of dispatching fire crews to
forest fires. This program was originally written on a TRS-80 computer and
sold commercially nation wide years ago by the same people, Sublogic, who
first published Flight Simulator.

POPSIM

A Hammurabi type program in which rulers of two planets decide
how best to spend their resources to keep their populations stable or
increasing, choices include a mix of domestic expenditures plus research,
trading, or making war.

LIFEB

an improved simulation of Conway's game of Life.

STRAT

A program to input moves in a completed Webstratego game and work
backwards to show the opponents starting position.

LOTTO

Picks LOTTO numbers. Basically a waste of time. I saw so many programs
like this being sold for various amounts that I thought I would see how long
it would take to write one. It took one to two hours.

Utilities

JOBCTL

A program system to distribute numbers of jobs to be done among various
computers on a network.

SHUFFLE

A program to shuffle the lines in an ASCII text file.

BINARY

A program to help you learn about binary numbers.

TRIG

two programs to show graphs of the trigonometric functions.

DFDS10 & DFES10 - Roie's File Encoding (Decoding) Scheme

Cryptography encoding and decoding programs, version 1.0.

PROB

A study in Probability.

PETALS

A graphics experiment in drawing flower petal designs.

FX

A program to use a text script file to draw graphic designs
on the screen in a programmed order.

WORDFIND

an experiment in inputting a series of letters and letting the computer
find all possible words to be made from those letters. So far only uses a
30,000 word dictionary of 5 to 8 letter words.

NAME

a file rename program that takes as arguments the name of the file
to be renamed and the extension to put on the renamed file. Renames the file
to a numerical name in the format mmddhhmm.ext. Great to use in batch files
to archive log files and other recurring files.

KALSCOP9

a kaleidoscope screen saver for DOS.

SONG

plays a few bars of music of three kinds:

I - initialize

W - Win

L - Lose

Use in batch files.

TAGLINES

A screen saver program that uses words instead of pictures.
On the command line set the name of a text file, the color, and the program speed or just accept the defaults
and the program will put quotes, humor, or any other text lines you define on the screen at random locations.
Includes almost 500 taglines.

DATETIME

A program to create a batch file to set variables in the DOS
enviroment to date and time parameters according to the command line switches
used. The program can set day, month, year, day of week, hour of day, minute
of hour, second of minute, random numbers and increment these or compare them
to given values. It can format dates and times numerically or by name. To be
used in batch files.

WHICH

A menu system which reads an input text file to set up a menu
screen and allow complete control of applications from that menu and other
submenus set up the same way or with the companion CHOOSE program. A part of
my DOS system which makes windows unnecessary for most users.

CHOOSE

A menu system to read files in a subdirectory and allow point
and click actions such as viewing, executing, and deleting. A part of my DOS
system which makes windows unnecessary for most users.

PASSWORD

A program to be used in menu systems and batch files to
prevent access by unauthorized persons, to log those who do access, and to
allow or disallow setting up new users and changing passwords.

READFILE

A program to read all ASCII or alpha numeric characters from a binary
computer file. Useful to see what's really in some of these files. Output to
printer or text file.

RANDOM

a program to set up and maintain a list of items and when
asked pick one at random.

WINDMILL

A subroutine to put a rotating text windmill on the screen to indicate
that the computer is busy doing something.

TXT2HTM

A program to convert a text file to a web page.

CSV

A program to read a CSV formatted file and convert it to a text file.

SSORT - Super Sort

A better sorting program. Convert one data file to another. Input file or
output file can be a text file, a binary file, or a delimited file.
Operations include:

Takes a file named INPUT.XML and using a TEMPLATE.TXT file as a guide
converts it to a file named OUTPUT.CSV
The program also creates a file, TEST.TXT, that contains the data tags needed
to create or edit the TEMPLATE.TXT file. Tags both in TEMPLATE.TXT and in
TEST.TXT have trailing spaces. Tags in TEMPLATE.TXT with brackets indicate to
the program constants to be put in the output file. Those have no trailing
space.
So the procedure is copy an XML file to INPUT.XML. Run the program. Use the
resulting TEST.TXT file to find the tags needed to create or edit the mapping
file, TEMPLATE.TXT. Run the program again and the resulting output file,
OUTPUT.CSV should be the file you have specified.

VOCAB - Vocabulary analysis

Reads a text file counting the total number of words which do not start
with a capital letter as proper nouns do and listing in a text file named
"Vocab.txt" all the unique words along with the number of times each is used
in the file. It also logs the number of words and number of unique words.

Education

An educator is a person who helps another person to learn. An
educational system is a group of educators working with
educational facilities and materials to facilitate the learning
process for a number of students. A good educational system is
supervised by well trained educators who spend their time
setting goals for the education of students in the system and
supervising and training other educators to achieve these goals.
These supervisors see that business administrators and others
within the educational system provide the necessary facilities
and materials to reach these goals, but they use most of their
time in day to day supervision of other educators observing,
training, supporting, rewarding good performance, correcting
poor performance, and planning. These supervisors have actual
authority over their subordinates.

Although most teachers in the Clinton County School System are
or try to be good educators, the purpose of the System as a
whole is to employ as many people as possible in the name of
education, to put as many children as possible into classrooms
with teachers for a period of twelve years of the student's
lives, and to get as much money as possible to pay these
employees as much as possible. There is no planning process, no
set of educational goals, very little supervision, no trained
business administrators, and no system of training and rewards
for good performance by teachers or sanctions for poor
performance. Supervisors exist in name only because they have
no real authority over their subordinates and perform very few
supervisory functions. Teachers are, in general, poorly trained
and many are not proficient in the subject they are supposed to
teach. The system provides, for the community, employment, baby
sitting services, and entertainment (by means of school sports).
The education provided is incidental to these other functions.
Due to pressure to actually provide education, in spite of lack
of support from the system, many teachers in the last few years
have begun to teach children to take tests so that test scores
will rise. Their approach has been to provide copies of the
tests and answers in advance of the test. It has been found
that this does, indeed, cause an increase in test scores.

The Clinton County School System is obviously, a school system,
not an educational system and probably will not become one in at
least the next ten years, if ever.

As far as I know, no one in authority would try to implement the
above definition of an educational system. This includes the
Superintendent, most school board members including the so called
"reform members" and most, if not all, principals. I am sure
though, that all these people will give lip service to this
definition by saying they support it.

An excellent education is essential to each of us as individuals
and to our children. It is only though education that we can
achieve all that we are capable of achieving and have as happy
and fulfilling a life as possible. Education is necessary to
gain economic independence, philosophical value systems, and
cultural appreciation.

An excellent educational system is also essential to our
nation. The strength of a democracy is dependent on intelligent
informed voters and skillful, well-trained workers.

It is my belief that to get excellence in education, it will be
necessary that we have a statement of objectives and plans for
our educational system on which the majority can agree. This
can be formulated only with a lot of public discussion and
compromise on divergent view points.

The following pages contain my ideas of problems and proposals
for some guiding principles for the school system in Clinton
County, Kentucky. They are submitted with the hope that they
can act as a starting place for the type of discussions
necessary and that they can eventually be expanded and modified
to become the statement of purpose and planning framework that
can guide our school system toward improvements now and in the
future.

The purpose of an educational system is to give students the
life skills necessary to enable them to lead happy, productive,
and useful lives. This means they must develop communication,
social, vocational and study skills, learn the essence of their
culture, and get a good working knowledge of math and science.
In general a high school graduate should be well prepared either
for college, trade school, or entering the job market or the
military. He should also have a knowledge of his culture and
the social and family skills necessary to live a satisfying
life. The job done by the Clinton County school system in
preparing students is not at all adequate, either in comparison
to what is needed or to what is possible or to the job done by
many other school systems in the nation and the world.

This is because there is no overall commitment by school
officials and employees, parents, students, and the community in
general to a well defined and accepted set of educational goals
and to a plan for achieving those goals. As a result there is
no sense of continuity, high expectations, pride, or
accomplishment in the educational process. The present purpose
of the system seems to be to hire as many local people as
possible to staff classrooms in which as many children as
possible will spend the required number of days for 12 years of
their life and to call the result an educated person. The
emphasis is on employment, baby sitting, and sports.

Students entering high school lack adequate motivation,
discipline, and preparation to learn. This is because that we
do not instill a sense of purpose and love of learning in the
first eight grades and we do not give students the necessary
study skills and basic background knowledge. Many students
therefore, instead of viewing school as a window on the world
which can shed light on their lives, see it as a dungeon in
which they are sentenced to kill time while awaiting adulthood.
We have a tendency to destroy the young child's natural
curiosity instead of encouraging it.

Our school system is run for the benefit of the employees not
for the benefit of the students. To some degree courses are
offered in the high school based on what teachers want to teach
rather than on a plan for offering what students need to learn.
Employee salaries are raised based on the maximum amount
available to give. The purpose of employee raises should be to
attract and keep high quality employees and to reward good and
outstanding performance. Budget considerations should be given
first to student needs, then to employee raises, not vice versa.
Recently employees were being given large raises while 6, 7, and
8 year old children were sent door to door selling candy to raise
money to buy equipment for the school playground. Very seldom,
if ever, has our school system made a conscious effort to
recruit teachers with the skills and background needed for a
perceived student need. Rather jobs have been created for local
people who needed a job. The present system of assigning bus
drivers for field trips is based on rotating drivers to be fair
to the drivers, not on choosing the best driver for a specific
trip with the safety of the children in mind. Many other
examples could be given.

Examples of the lack of high expectations abound. Children are
not provided soap in the bathrooms when they wash their hands.
I have observed students at the high school at the end of the
day taking down the American flag. Once I saw them fold it into
a cocked hat and carry it reverently into the school. On other
occasions I have seen them use the flag for a tug of war, drag
in on the ground, wad it up, or simply throw it over their
shoulder to carry it into the building. At most schools many
teachers race the children at the end of the day to be the first
to leave the school parking lot.

Students come to high school unprepared. While in high school
they do not have access to the proper courses, an adequate
variety of stimulating courses, or courses offering enough
detail. In almost all courses the students do not even complete
the text book during the school year. This is because they are
not prepared or expected to work hard enough to do so and
because it is usually not one of the teacher's goals. I doubt if
there is any serious goal as to what the student is supposed to
learn in most courses. More likely, the goal is simply that the
students spend so many days studying the subject. Teachers are
often not adequately trained in the subject they are teaching.
Tests are usually designed to be easy enough for most students
to pass not as a goal or standard for which to strive. Very
little and usually superficial homework is given. The emphasis
is on memorizing and parroting back facts, not on hands on
experience in the subject field. There is very little challenge
for good students.

Our schools were criticized several years ago because students'
scores on statewide achievement tests were low. Since then I
think I have noticed a disturbing tendency to emphasize tests
and test taking, perhaps at the expense of learning the subject
material. I submit that memorizing facts in order to pass a
multiple choice or true false test is not the same thing as
becoming a master of subject material. We would probably do
better to emphasize hands on, small group research projects,
simulations, essays and papers, essay type tests, outlining,
thinking, problem solving, and grades based more on daily
evidence of mastery of the subject material rather than tests.
I am afraid we are in danger of graduating students who know
full well who wrote the Declaration of Independence and when he
did it but have not the foggiest notion of why the heck he did
it nor of its significance.

When my older son went to college he found that many kids from
other school systems were much better prepared than he was even
though he had been an A student in high school. He found that
he had been taught less and graded easier than many other
students. As a result he feels that our local educational
system has failed him. I hope that each principal in each of
our schools is fully aware of the type of teaching job being
done by each teacher. I hope they are commending and
recommending higher pay for the best ones and I hope they are
helping and counseling the worst ones.

The two most important things a teacher can do are to motivate
the student to learn and to give him the study skills to do so.

The schools should emphasize learning by doing. There should be
a number of projects in each department designed to immerse the
student in the learning process usually in a group situation and
usually involving extra work outside the classroom both during
and after regular school hours. We should do away with multiple
choice and true/false tests as well as test grading machines.
Grades should be based on the student's daily work, research
papers and essay type tests. Communication skills including
speaking, writing, reading comprehension and preparation of
visual aids should be emphasized in all classes. Technology and
application to the student's daily life should be utilized in
all departments. Projects carried out by learning groups of 3
to 8 students should be designed so that the active
participation of all students is necessary to accomplish
objectives. Learning occurs almost exclusively through
experience and through reflection on that experience.

Each student should come to school each morning with high
expectations of the work to be done, the knowledge to be gained
and the school environment. He should leave each evening with a
feeling that there is more to be done and to be learned and he
should continue work at home or in groups with other schoolmates
on projects begun that day. These projects should result by the
next day in a number of questions for the learning facilitators
and with plans for the students exploring answers for
themselves.

Each teacher should have a detailed and written outline for each
class stating the goals of the class as far as material to be
covered and mastered by each student as well as criteria for
determining when and to what extent each student has mastered
the material. This should be supplemented by detailed lesson
plans for teaching each unit of the material. The plans should
include essays and term papers, text book use, class exercises,
outside research materials and activities and expected time
required to cover each unit. All these individual class plans
should be reviewed by principals and staff planning committees
so that they are integrated into the school district goals and
plans. These plans should then be reviewed and revised as
necessary during and at the end of each school year to ensure
continuous improvement.

Fundamental Principles:

Educators should be involved in education at least 90% of their
time.

School support functions including bookkeeping, transportation,
food, and maintenance do not require educators and should be
supervised by experts in these respective fields.

Principals and administrative educators including the school
superintendent should spend their time innovating, improving,
and supervising the educational process and should not be
directly involved in support functions except for making
requests of needed services or changes from support function
personnel and, in the case of the superintendent, providing
direct supervision of a Business Manager.

The Business Manager should be a business management professional.

It is necessary that there be vastly improved lines of
communication between the administrative staff and the general
public, parents, teachers, students, etc.

What should be the ground rules for school field
trips? What are their advantages? What are their
disadvantages? Should they be encouraged
or discouraged by the system?

What should be the place of sports, band, choir,
academic and other clubs, and other extracurricular
activities in the school? What about academic teams?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of all
these? What should the ground rules be?

In what ways should teachers be held accountable for
their performance? What should be the rules for
rewards for good performance? How should poor
performance be handled? How should performance be
evaluated?

How much should homework, other outside class work, summer
reading programs, etc. be stressed? What are the problems and
advantages of these?

In what ways can the teacher's schedule be changed to allow
cooperative planning among teachers and exposure by teachers to
new and different teaching methods?

To prevent the dry memorization of facts and parroting
them back which turns so many students off to the educational
process the following examples of projects are offered. I'm
sure a brain storming session could come up with many others. A
cooperative effort among teachers and involvement by the parents
and the entire community would be necessary.

History:

Use a video camera to record oral history interviews of
local people and create an ongoing series of these interviews on
video tape in the library.

With the Art department create a mosaic time-line of
American History all along one wall of a high school hall.
Include items of Kentucky History and local history as
appropriate. Display items used in the past but no longer
common. This same idea could, of course, be applied to World
history, or European history or Chinese history.

Research projects, oral presentations, group written
essays along with visual aids for various periods of history
including viewing movies such as Ken Burns, "The Civil War"
series, etc.

Outside reading and book reports on well written
biographies of historical figures.

Encouragement of additional research on any time period
in which the class shows unusual interest.

Essays on the student's impression of daily life for a
person of a certain age and occupation at a specified time and
place in the past.

Develop and present plays about specific historical
occurrences. This should involve the drama department.

Math:

Use the pythagorean theorem to measure the distance
across a stream or other unreachable area.

Use similiar triangles to measure the height of a tree.

Let various students groups measure the height of 30
people selected at random from the population. Do a statistical
analysis of the data stratified by age and sex. Discuss
conclusions which can be drawn and how valid they are likely to
be.

Survey the school grounds and calculate the area in
acres.

Set up time and distance problems. Calculate the
speed of automobiles passing the school grounds.

With the social studies class measure the flow of a
stream and calculate its suitablity as a water supply for the
town. Calculate the population that it could supply and the
effect on the stream of doing so.

Put a much greater emphasis on reading problems in math so that
the student is forced to think of applications of what he has
learned.

Social Studies:

Assign student groups to take each side on any
controversial issue now in the news media, do research, and
conduct a public debate on the issue.

Give out play money and let student groups do economic
research and design a strategy to invest in the stock market for
a two month period following up with stock market prices from
the newspaper each day. See which group can make the best return
on investment.

Assume that Lake Cumberland disappears overnite. Assign
student groups to find the best alternative water source for the
community, other student groups to determine costs and find
financing methods, other groups to consider environmental
impacts, etc.

Assume that the County Government is given free of
charge a 100 acre tract of land near Albany. Assign student
groups to make arguments for using the land for recreation,
industry, education, housing, and other uses. Let them do
research and develop arguments to present to the fiscal court.
Finish with an actual presentation to a mock fiscal court which
must decide the issue.

I am a student of the Clinton County School System. This means
that I can be proud because I am better than the other people I
will come in contact with throughout life. I am better because
I was given a better start in life due to the determination of
my family, people in my community, and the leaders of my school
system to give me the highest possible quality of education.

Therefore if I go on to higher education or a professional
career I will be able to succeed and excel. If I join the
military, I will be one of the best soldiers and one of the
first to be promoted. If I become a part of the labor force I
will be a leader, a hard worker, and the worker showing the most
initiative. If I become a businessman, I will, not only be
successful, but I will also be an asset to my community always
making it better than when I found it. If I become a secretary,
or a housewife or a politician or an explorer or any of the
hundreds of other opportunities open to me, I will always excel.

I can be proud because I come from a school system and a
community with the highest standards. A place where everyone is
expected to be neat and clean in personal habits, respectful of
and tolerant of the rights of others, respectful of both public
and private property always caring for the property of others as
if it were my own. A place where there is a love of life and of
learning to reach the highest potential of each individual. A
place where there is a tradition of hard work to achieve lofty
goals. A place where expectations are not for us to be as good
as anyone but to be better. A place where we are provided with
the very best teachers and faculty who teach us more and expect
more of us than in other school systems.

I can be sure of myself and confident of my beliefs, my
standards, and my future success because I know that my school
system gave me an excellent background in:

Philosophy so that I could decide what life is about and what I
want out of life and be motivated to work to get it.

Health, hygiene and social relations so that I can live a long
and healthy life, have good manners and get along well with
others.

Study skills so that I know how to do research and learn the
things I do not know.

Language, composition, and oral communications skills as well as
public relations so that I can communicate effectively with
others.

Mathematics and logic so that I am adept at abstract thought and
am able to see mathematical and quantitative relationships.

History, geography and social studies so that I can have a sense
of perspective of my place in the vast scheme of the universe.

Science so that I know how things work together and so that I
know how to obtain knowledge.

Literature, poetry, music, drama and art so that I will be aware
of and appreciate my cultural heritage.

Physical education and sports so that I have a strong and healty
body and am aware of the value of hard work, practice, and
teamwork for success.

In my behavior both now and throughout my life I will always
strive to bring honor and never dishonor to my family, my school
and my community. I will always work to and expect to succeed
and, if in some things I fail, I will hold my head high and
determine to learn from the experience and do better in the
future. I will know that my successes are due to my abilities
and my hard work and that my failures will never be because I
did not do my best. I will always live so that others will be
impressed by the example I set and so that I am always an asset
and never a liability to any group of which I am a part.

In the Clinton County School System our sports and academic
teams are always present for practice, listen to their coaches,
and work hard so that they can usually win. And if we play
another team and, through some freak accident of nature, lose,
we will so impress the other team and their fans with our good
sportsmanship, our polite behavior, our neat dress, the
cleanliness and quality of our team bus or, if at home, our
school facilities, that they will remember for a very long time
the fact that they played us and the hard game we gave them.

Clinton County School students love to learn and expect to work
hard at the process. It is common to spend at least two hours
every night on homework. If enough homework is not available
most students will work on extra credit projects assigned by the
teachers at the beginning of each school year and thereby learn
more. After twelve years of school in this system then, we will
all have been exposed to more education than students from any
comparable school systems.

The primary problem with our educational system is that it
attempts to educate without teaching the use of the mind for
thinking. I suspect that this is because it is staffed by its
own products. We take high school juniors and seniors at a time
when their minds hunger for stimulation and teach them to
memorize and parrot.

The following list of subjects for essays and debate is
suggested to remedy this situation. Each subject could be the
basis for anything from a one hour discussion to a whole
semester course. Students should be encouraged to develop
creative and original ideas, logically defend their position,
and use the English language effectively to communicate with
others. They should know how to effectively define a problem,
obtain information, do research, and think to find solutions to
the problem, and communicate the results of their work to
others.

Consider:

Assigning subjects or letting students choose.

Expanding the list of possibilities.

Assigning students to work in teams of 3 or 4.

Assigning teams to opposite sides of a discussion in a
class debate.

Listing on the board the comments heard and discussing
these as a class.

Looking for relevant news stories in current events.

Finding previous thoughts and essays on the subject.

Finding relevant historical occurrences.

Beware: Use of these suggestions can cause controversy. It is
entirely possible that if very many students are encouraged to
think, some may develop and defend a thought that is outside the
constraints of the conventional wisdom. This may cause
criticism of the teacher and/or the school.

What are the various ways of learning?
(Discuss the efficiency of each.)

What is a political system? (Why is it necessary?)

What is an economic system? (Why is it necessary?)

What (if any) is the value of a study of history?

Discuss the values and problems of personal social interaction!

What is culture? Compare 17th century European with American
Indian culture. Describe features of contemporary American
culture.

What is (are) the goal(s) of your life?
What will you have to do to achieve them?

Describe a lifestyle designed for optimum physical well-being!

Describe a program of mental exercise!

What are 20 interesting subjects for essays besides those listed
here?

Under what circumstances is a soldier justified in disobeying
orders?

Under what circumstances is a citizen justified in disobeying
laws?

Discuss right vs. wrong in the context of:

Political laws.

Religious laws.

Moral laws.

Did a man ever walk on the moon? How do you know?
Defend the position that the story is just a public relations
gimmick.

If people are starving to death in Africa because there are more
people than there is food available and the birth rate is such
that the population is increasing, should the people of the
United States help and, if so, how?

Should money be spent in the exploration of space? Why or why
not?

Jesus said, "The poor are with you always." Why is this so?

If it were possible to genetically design your children, would
this be desirable? Discuss.

Should those with serious inherited diseases be sterilized?

Nuclear energy - Discuss the advantages and disadvantages?

Barry Commoner said, "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
What does this imply?

Jesus said, "Take no thought of tomorrow." Huh?

The thief
left it behind --
the moon at the window. Discuss.

It is said that God is on the side of the winner.
Does this mean that right is might
or does it maen that the winner gets to write the history
books?

Should children be separated in school classes on the basis of:

Color?

Sex?

IQ?

Family income?

Religion?

Language spoken?

Why or why not?

What is an educated man?

What is an intelligent man?

What is a cultured person?

What is a gentleman?

What is an honorable man?

What is a drug? Why use them? Why not?

The death penalty (yes or no)?

Survival of the fittest! What does it mean? What does it
imply?

Thomas Jefferson said, "All men are created equal." Are they?

Karl Marx said, "Religion is the opium of the masses." Agree or
disagree?

You are assigned to stock a bomb shelter with items necessary to
rebuild civilization after a nuclear war. What are the ten
things most important to save? Why?

Discuss individual responsibility and predestination.

Consider your present position is life. To what extent is it
due to:

Your own actions?

Actions of your parents?

Your environment?

Actions of others in past history?

Actions of your contemporaries?

What would be the effect on your life if you knew the time and
circumstances of your own death?

What if your parents had married someone else?

One idea discussed in the recent Iran-Contra hearings is that
government by open committee is more inefficient than government
run by one or a very small group of men in secret because a
larger group such as Congress will be unable to agree on a
course of action and decisions reached in public debate can be
more easily attacked and defeated by their opponents. Discuss
the idea that this is both a weakness and a strength of
democracy.

Should one who has no conception of democracy or our system of
government and no, or very little, knowledge of the candidates
and issues and doesn't pay taxes be allowed to vote?
Should the laws enacted by a legislative body apply to any who
were not permitted to participate in electing that body?

This education information was put on this Internet site to raise questions
about the quality of educational efforts and to foster discussion. The basic
idea is to support public education by finding ways to make it more objectives
oriented. I find that this subject, like so many, tends to get attention from
some individuals who are able to enter into an intelligent discussion of
issues and also from some fools who are "true believers" in an agenda or
ideology which is based on an us versus them mentality. I find that some
people, because I have criticized public education, have assumed that I am one
of their group which basically, for various reasons, believes that public
education should be replaced with some other system.

Although I realize that legitimate arguments for their point of view can
probably be made, I find that these types of people usually simply want to
destroy, not improve, the educational system. They seem to me to usually have
an anti-government, anti-democracy, and narrow minded anti-religious freedom
view which is very different from mine.

The purpose of this page is to disavow this type of support. I realize
that, in doing so, I will probably end up with little support because there
are in the educational establishment many other narrow minded people on the
other side of the us versus them equation who will disagree with this site
because it does criticize the establishment. So be it.

Below is a quote from one of these right wing nuts who
wish to destroy our educational system:

You need to know that Clinton, Gore, and a few thousand
cronies are part of a "New World Order" conspiracy to bring
down the sovereignty of this nation and put it under the
U.N. Charter -- a miserably inferior document to our
Constitution. Therefore, I suggest your efforts be
directed ..... to strip all federal funding from anything to
do with messing around with education, dismantle all the
education labs of the department of education...

They often describe the federal Goals 2000 program as the
apex of the Federal Government's evil effort to subvert our
children. Below is that evil document:

All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having
demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter
including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages,
civics and government, economics, arts, history, and
geography, and every school in America will ensure that all
students learn to use their minds well, so they may be
prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and
productive employment in our Nation's modern economy.

The Nation's teaching force will have access to programs for
the continued improvement of their professional skills and
the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed
to instruct and prepare all American students for the next
century.

United States students will be first in the world in
mathematics and science achievement.

Every adult American will be literate and will possess the
knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global
economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship.

Every school in the United States will be free of drugs,
violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and
alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive
to learning.

Every school will promote partnerships that will increase
parental involvement and participation in promoting the
social, emotional, and academic growth of children.

Many people support the idea of a school voucher program.
This theory is that if the tax money now going to the entire
educational system were instead given to parents of school
aged children in the form of education vouchers to be used
to purchase education from private companies formed to
provide such education, then the free market would cause
improvement of educational quality. I am sure that in the
case of some enlightened and some upper class parents that
would occur for their children. I am equally sure that this
system would be a disaster for the overall educational level
of this nation. The result would be just what the
proponents of this system envision, a nation which would
provide the education the parents want. The problem is that
many and probably most parents do not want education for
their children. They want baby sitting, employment of their
friends and relatives, a strong sports program, and
religious indoctrination. In rural areas like the one in
which I live, too small to support more than one school
system and thus with no competition, the school system for
all would reflect the desires of this second type of parent.
Although it is true that areas like this now have a public
education system that is very similiar to the one I just
described, there is, at least, hope, due to Goals 2000, KERA,
and other reform efforts, that improvement can occur.

The purpose of a national educational system is not to be
a service to parents to provide the services they want for
their children, but a service to children and to the future
to give those children an education adequate to enable them
to lead successful adult lives and to be productive and
informed citizens. By the logic of these voucher proponents
the National Park System should also be turned over to
private enterprise so that it could be exploited, provide
jobs, and be turned into Disney type theme parks giving the
majority what they want, not what is best for the future of
the nation.

Many of these people also object to the taxes of people
who do not have children in school or who send their
children to private schools being used to support the public
school system. Once again they fail to realize that the
educational system serves a public, not a private, purpose
and thus must be supported by all the public. In general people who have
money usually object to the government taking that money to use for purposes
which do not directly benefit them. This idea is, of course, basically
anti-government because the purpose of government is to support the public good
rather than the greed of individuals. The trick is to achieve a balance
between public needs and individual rights. I, like others, do not like
having a government to the extent that it interferes with my life, but I also
realize that it is necessary to provide me protection from others and services
which, as an individual, I am unable to provide for myself.

There do not seem to be any shortcuts. I think improving education
requires that the majority of the public have a statement of objectives of
education much more specific than Goals 2000 and a plan for reaching those
objectives that they can support and that they insist that school systems use
that plan to meet those objectives.

An interesting contradiction is that many of the same people who do not want
the government to interfere in their lives by providing education for their
children do want the government to force all children to pray aloud and to
be indoctrinated into religion in the schools. I have never understood this.

Most people believe that religion is a personal thing. This nation was
founded on that very premise, that each man has to find his own religion and
that no one, and especially not the government, has any right to force a
religion upon him. That simple idea is called freedom of religion. It is one
of the fundamental individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights added as
the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. It is our
protection against the excesses of unrestrained government. It was once the
belief of the Conservative movement and of the Republican party that "that
government is best which governs least". These people, like Barry Goldwater
whom I was raised to admire, believed that individuals should have as much
liberty as possible and that government, to the extent it was necessary at
all, was best in small units and as close to the local level as possible.

Now people who call themselves conservatives want to put prayer in the
schools and want the schools teaching students the religious beliefs of the
majority or of somebody. Actually, I guess, the majority of these people have
not studied the issues for themselves, but have simply believed it when others
mislead them by claiming that children had been forbidden to pray in schools.
The government can no more forbid children to pray in schools than it can
force them to do so. What is forbidden is any imposition of religion on
students in any way, either by schools requiring or sponsoring prayers or
religious study of any particular religion.

May a child pray aloud or preach in class to disrupt the class? Of course
not, no more than he may play his boom box or sell tupperware in class. May a
student bow his head and say a silent blessing before beginning his meal or
say a quiet prayer before opening the test booklet? Of course he may. Why
would anyone want schools any other way?

Jesus said:

"Again, when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; they love to say
their prayers standing up in synagogue and at the street corners, for
everyone to see them. I tell you this: they have their reward already.
But when you pray, go into a room by yourself, shut the door, and pray to
your Father who is there in the secret place; and your Father who sees what
is secret will reward you."

May a teacher lead a class in prayer or in saying a morning bible verse?
No. That's for parents in homes and clergymen in church. Neither may she
require that they read from the Koran, or the Talmud or the Tao Te Ching of
Lao Tzu each morning.

However, it seems that most educators also do not understand the concept of
religious freedom. Religious freedom does not mean freedom from exposure to
religion. It simply means freedom from imposition of religion. In my
opinion, a very essential part is missing from the educational system. That
is study of religion and philosophy. A student should obtain a knowledge of
his culture and, to me, religion and philosophy are as much a part of that as
is history. The problem is that we do not seem to have many in the
educational establishment who have enough sense to know the difference between
the comparative study of various religions and religious history and the
imposition of religion. Study of religion and philosophy would involve
exposure to both the pros and cons of various religions and philosophies
without pushing any particular doctrine. In the case of Christianity, for
instance, it would involve not only Mother Teresa and Cardinal Bernardin but
also the murders committed in the name of religion in the Crusades and the
Spanish Inquisition and the many wars fought and people killed in the name of
peace on earth.

Some think I am, somehow, against teachers. I think the teaching profession
should be the most honored and rewarded of any in our nation because of the
importance of their job. At the same time I realize that, in spite of the job
of brainwashing the public that they have tried to do over the years, teachers
are not magic or smarter than people in other professions or dedicated to
their work or otherwise exalted. They are just people trying to do a job they
have been trained to do. Some are smart. Some are dedicated. Some, like
people in other professions, are not all that smart. Some are not all that
dedicated but simply want, like many of us, to get as much pay as possible for
doing as little as possible. As a local man once said to me, "You cannot
overpay a good teacher and you cannot underpay a poor one."

That is why it is necessary that we have excellent administrators in our
schools who can spend most of their time training, and supervising, and
supporting the teaching staff and finding new and innovative ways to improve
education.

In the Beginning

For over 99 percent of known human existence our ancestors lived in communal
nudity. Until loom technology emerged in Asia about 6,000 years ago, clothing
wasn't an available option anywhere on the planet unless one was into fur, a
bad choice for humid days.

All children grew up knowing exactly what others of their fellow species
looked like. Modesty was presumably not a burning issue, and the notion that
human bodies were obscene would never have been imagined. Unless taught
otherwise, body acceptance was as natural as life and self acceptance.

Colonial Cover-ups

Social nudity is an old tradition in the San Francisco Bay Area. Prior to
the 18th Century invasion of their tribal villages by Western Civilization's
emissaries clad in military armor and clerical robes, the earliest
Californians had lived unashamedly nude in this temperate, coastal climate for
over 10,000 years.

Their sad experience was a familiar story of colonialism: that is,
cultural genocide, including a compulsory cover-up of naked savages in the
name of civilized modesty. Instilling body shame became an essential element
in the conversion and control of native peoples.

The modus operandi was systematically repeated over four centuries in the
Americas, Africa, Australia, the Pacific Islands and most of the rest of the
world where clothing was and is climatically superfluous. Disregarding
tropical discomfort, European colonial/religious authorities made wearing
clothing the most visible sign of subservience to the new order. The Hawaiian
mumu was one such fashionable result.

A Culture Shifts

Nudity was not always taboo in Europe, of course. Those prime contributors
to Western Civilization, the ancient Greeks, found the nude human form both
noble and artistically inspiring, competed nude in the Olympics for centuries,
and sometimes even fought wars with nude combatants. Their cultural
successors, the Romans, socialized nudity in their public baths, and nudity
was often part of pagan ceremony and celebration throughout pre-Christian
Europe.

Though early Christianity cleverly coopted key pagan holidays and myths to
gain acceptance, it denounced the more flexible pagan attitudes about nudity,
sexuality and the human body. Faithfully believing Jesus's Second Coming was
imminent for many centuries after his crucifixion, early Christian leaders
tended to be extreme ascetics who closed their doubting minds, rejected their
sinful bodies and focused mostly on their spiritual hereafters. The "flesh"
was seen as an evil temptation, especially if it was female.

Despite a lack of doctrinal support in the Gospels, this negative corporal
attitude prevailed through various waxings and wanings for over a millennium
after the Church succeeded the Roman Empire as the standard bearer of Western
Civilization. If anything, the Protestants who later emerged were even more
body repressive than the Catholics. Many of Europe's most radical religious
sects were forced to emigrate to America, where their legacy lingers.

Old-fashioned beach wear The "Body Taboo" peaked in influence and
absurdity in the Victorian Age when even bare piano legs were considered
risque in "polite society". By the end of the 19th Century European
colonialism was winding down for lack of new, unplundered targets, and most of
the accessible naked heathen still left alive had been clad to more modest
standards.

At last civilized people seemed safe from the presumed moral danger of
seeing a nude human body, including even one's own. Undressing in the dark was
the norm, bathing was not especially encouraged, and s-e-x, also performed in
the dark and never discussed, was only for procreation, never recreation. (No
woman of good moral character would admit erotic pleasure from the act of love
lest she be thought promiscuous.)

Nudity Returns

Early in the 20th Century social nudity began its first European comeback
since Rome was sacked. An international body acceptance movement emerged to
propose nudity in nature as a humanizing antidote to the repressive extremes
of both puritanical Victorianism and urban industrialism.

Known as "Free Body Culture" in Germany, "Naturism" in most of Europe, and
eventually "Nudism" as it reached American shores in the third decade, the
movement's secular, idealistic philosophy included non-sexual social nudity,
outdoor exercise, a healthy, non-alcoholic, usually vegetarian diet, and a
spiritual bond with nature. Though it was not a religion and neither opposed
nor promoted any religion, it provided a convenient symbolic target for many
ambitious guardians of public morality, especially in the U.S., where nudity
seemed indistinguishable from sexuality in the public mind.

Interrupted only by wars, the body acceptance movement spread very
rapidly, especially in Europe, where it eventually devolved from the utopian
to the mostly recreational as social nudity became more popular. A BBC
documentary in the 1980's estimated that over 50 million Europeans enjoyed
naturist holidays.

American tourists are often astonished by European body freedom. In less
than a century Europe transformed from total suppression of nudity to a
situation where many of the most popular beaches are clothing-optional, as are
sections of certain urban parks, spas and resorts.

Frontal nudity, censored in America, is commonly shown on European
television, while violence is much less often depicted than in the U.S. Nude
destination resorts flourish in the warmest climates, and one of the largest
holiday centers in the world, France's Cap d'Agde, is all nude, serving a
capacity of over 40,000 in season.

America's Slower Transition

Body acceptance developments in The New World have lagged behind those in
Europe. Private nudist clubs, parks and campgrounds first emerged in the
1930's facing nervous media ridicule, censorship and The Depression. Neither
World War II nor the regressive 1950's gave the American movement much
encouragement after its inauspicious debut, and early growth was glacial.

After finally winning the legal right to publish and mail innocuous nude
photos in the late 1950's, nudist publications were swamped in the marketplace
in the 1960's by an explosive growth of unrelated pornography with much more
erotic images. Their magazines' commercial failure left the mostly family-
oriented nudist clubs with few outreach channels besides word-of-mouth by an
often secretive membership, and thus they generated few resources for growth
and development.

Beach nudity, usually at remote or hard-to-reach sites, grew in popularity
beginning in the 1960's. Black's Beach, a cliff-protected, clothing-optional
mecca for nude sand-and-surf lovers near San Diego, has attracted over 10,000
participants on seasonal holidays during the following decades.

The Sexual Revolution and the addition of backyard swimming pools and hot
tubs made discrete private nudity more sociable and normal through the 1970's.
Polls in the 1980's found that although less than 20% of Americans had by then
experienced coed social nudity, over 70% felt that designating clothing-
optional beaches was an acceptable concept.

Nude Choices in the 1990's

While only a scattered few clothing-optional beaches are legally
recognized in the U.S., guidebooks by The Naturist Society, and others list
hundreds of beaches and public recreation areas where social nudity is
unofficially accepted as a matter of usage. The annual nude beach survey by
the Bay Guardian usually catalogs almost a hundred such sites just in Northern
California, perhaps the most body-positive region in the West.

American Association for Nude Recreation, the largest and oldest of
several nude advocacy organizations, includes over 200 U.S. and Canadian
affiliated clubs with a total membership of about 50,000. The most successful
AANR clubs, attracting up to 5,000 members, are located in central Florida.

The founding in the mid-1980's of TANR, the Trade Association for Nude
Recreation, reflected the emergence of nude recreation as a fledgling niche of
this hemisphere's hospitality industry. Though it may yet lack depth, it
offers surprising breadth. Those seeking a relaxing clothes-free getaway or
vacation in the 1990's can choose among full-service destination resorts,
clubs, cruises, campgrounds, parks, hot springs, spas and bed-and-breakfast
inns across North America and the Caribbean.

Several large Jamaican resorts, taking a hint from Club Med, have
established "nude" and "prude" beach sections. The adoption of a clothing-
optional beach has helped revive the fortunes of a recently renovated strip of
Miami Beach hotels. Clusters of nude recreation facilities are beginning to
emerge in tourist areas around Tampa, Florida, and Palm Springs, California.

The signs are encouraging that Americans are finally becoming more
accepting of social nudity. The constraining issues tend to be more about
personal body image than lingering cultural prohibitions. If Europe is the
precursor, body acceptance and nude recreation still have a long way to grow
in the U.S.

Nudity in America

"... It seems inevitable that we will become increasingly comfortable with
nudity so that, some day, pictures of naked models and actors and the presence
of nude bathers on public beaches no longer will shock the moral sensitivities
of most Americans."

During the last 50 years, there has been a tremendous liberalization in
American attitudes concerning sexual behavior, but public nudity continues to
evoke disgust and ridicule. Even though legal restrictions have been relaxed
and clothing-optional beaches are more numerous than ever before, as are the
sunbathers who frequent them, most Americans continue to disapprove of nudity
no less than their grandparents did. In spite of the fact that it now is quite
acceptable to display nearly all of one's body poolside or at the beach, total
nudity continues to make Americans very uncomfortable.
Proponents of nudity usually maintain a low profile, not wishing to invite
what seems to be inevitable hostility. Given the present concern with "family
values," it is likely that such attitudes will persist for some time. However,
there is a gradual trend in American attitudes about the human body which
suggests that the public nudity taboo may be abandoned one day.

Why have prudish attitudes toward nudity been so tenacious in the U.S.?
Those who are middle age or older certainly are aware how other American
taboos have declined or even disappeared. For most, masturbation no longer is
equated with self-mutilation and premarital sex has become a nearly universal
norm. Like many other sexual activities, they have lost their immoral status.
Even homosexuality increasingly is regarded as merely an alternative sexual
orientation.

Remember how risque it used to be to read about sexual encounters in a
novel or to watch an impassioned love scene on the movie screen? Today, this
is the stuff of day-time TV, considered quite tame by present standards.
Modern literature and motion pictures, intent on titillating and shocking
audiences, now must resort to creative violence and psychopathic horror.
Scenes of urban cannibalism. serial murder, and mass destruction are rampant.
Yet, even as our tolerance of and appetite for depictions of violence have
increased greatly, a majority of us still find public nudity intolerable.

While Americans are much more sophisticated today on many subjects, nudity
continues to induce very charged reactions. Even among scholars, the mere
mention of nudity is likely to degenerate into wisecracks and old-fashioned
moralizing. Commercial television programming, prime time or not, still avoids
nudity, though ABC's "NYPD Blue" does show partial nudity. Occasionally,
topless women and mothers nursing babies may appear in a documentary.

Most of us are highly ambivalent when it comes to nudity. Privately, we
have an appetite for reading about it or looking at pictures of nudes.
Numerous successful novels contain explicit descriptions of sexual anatomy,
and Playboy has 3,400,000 subscribers. Since commercial films are designed for
public viewing, though, on-screen nudity is subject to strictures. Paintings
of nudes by European masters and classical nude statues from Egypt, Greece,
and Rome are exhibited to the public without much complaint. Yet, those who
openly express tolerance of public nudity in the U.S. are likely to make
themselves very unpopular.

Ironically, some Americans associate nudity with purity and innocence,
having Adam and Eve in mind perhaps. From this perspective, primitive tribes
that lack clothing may be seen as exemplifying some sort of pristine nobility.
Others attribute tribal nudity to cultural backwardness. Both views are fully
compatible with condemnation of nudity among "civilized" men and women.
Although television documentaries that include pictures of minimally clothed
or even entirely naked natives of Australia, Africa, the Pacific islands, and
South America do not seem to offend mainstream audiences, any prime-time
images of bare Caucasian breasts and buttocks are likely to cause a great deal
of trepidation. Male frontal nudity is especially taboo here. After "NYPD
Blue" included some nude scenes, it had considerable difficulty getting
sponsors despite its excellent ratings, though this generally no longer is the
case, with some notable holdouts.

Banning nude swimming and missionary efforts to clothe "savages" still
find a great deal of support in the U.S. Probably this is because many people
seem unable to distinguish nudity from licentiousness. By associating
unclothed bodies with sex and immorality, public nudity is considered obscene.
As this view would have it, since sex in a public place is wrong, so is
nudity.

Such American Puritanism has European roots. Even in Victorian times, a
large proportion of Europeans never saw a naked human body, and attitudes from
these eras are especially evident in the beliefs of American Christian
fundamentalists. Ironically, numerous Mediterranean beaches no longer require
clothing. France's largest nudist colony (Cap d'Agde) attracts 40,000 European
tourists each summer. Guests not only swim in the nude at this resort, but go
about naked even while shopping for groceries and eating in restaurants.
Scandinavia has a long tradition of nude sunbathing. It is difficult to find a
Swedish public beach where most of the bathers are not nude. Asia attracts
numerous European tourists by offering them nude resorts and beaches. Gambia,
in West Africa, is the choice of many Swedes who wish to holiday in the buff
during the winter, even though locals are a bit shocked by such immodesty.

Many Christians in Europe and the U.S. are thought of by others as
relatively anti-sex. Certainly, the Catholic Church has this reputation, and
fundamentalists long have insisted that "listening" to our bodies is what
prevents us from listening to God.

Nevertheless, nudity taboos are not peculiarly Christian. Women in Islamic
societies have gone back to wearing traditional garments, reflecting Moslem
fundamentalists' insistence on covering the entire female body. Hasidic Jews
believe that a husband must never see even his own wife's genitals, requiring
that couples make love in the dark. On the other hand, some Christian sects
have advocated and practiced nudity. The Doukhobors, who migrated from Russia
to Canada in search of religious freedom, shocked their Canadian neighbors on
several occasions when they staged highly publicized protest demonstrations
wherein the participants -- men, women, and children -- were entirely naked.

There is some irony here in that the Puritans, Victorians. and other
Europeans inherited much of their culture from the Greeks and Romans. In
classical times, public male nudity often was entirely acceptable. High-status
males exercised, participated in sporting events, and conducted public rituals
in the nude. Greek art portrayed males without clothing to emphasize their
athletic ability, heroic stature, and beauty. To this ancient population, male
nudity indicated empowerment, since women, slaves, and barbarians were not
permitted to be nude in public.

Shame and modesty

Many Americans are so thoroughly ethnocentric about nudity that they
insist their intolerance is a reflection of human nature. As illustrated by
the Adam and Eve myth, humans do experience shame. Writer Mark Twain once
pointed out, "Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to." Shame and
modesty, though, did not give rise to clothing, more likely, they were
byproducts of clothing.

Nudity

Found on the internet.

Where does the aversion to nudity come from?

Ultimately, it comes from the notion that nudity is immoral. To be nude,
except in rare and controlled circumstances, is an act of immorality.

But what's immoral about it? It's just our bodies. How can our bodies that we
are born with, that we are forced to carry around with us throughout our
lives, be immoral?

It's because, so goes the logic, nudity is sexual. The sight of a nude body is
sexually stimulating. And we shouldn't be sexually stimulated except by
certain people under certain circumstances. This is the basis of the belief
that nudity is immoral and therefore should not be seen.

So does that belief stand up to scrutiny?

Understand, if it does not stand up to scrutiny, then the whole argument that
nudity should be forbidden crumbles to dust.

A few generations ago, women were obliged to cover their ankles. The reason?
If men caught a glimpse of a naked female ankle, they would not be able to
control their lust. This belief became so prevalent that the legs of pianos
and other furniture had be covered up with aprons, because they could remind a
man of a female leg.

Only a century ago bathing suits did not look like they look today. In fact,
if you tried to wear a modern conservative bathing suit to a beach a hundred
years ago, you could very well have been arrested. Men were expected to be
covered from neck to knee, and women wore out-and-out dresses into the water.
They were cumbersome, uncomfortable, and possibly dangerous if a woman tried
to actually swim in such water-soaked garb--but they were modest.

Today we marvel at such silly prudishness. Men see female ankles all day in
modern times without feeling a hint of lust. If anyone showed up at the beach
in a bathing suit from 1900, he or she would be laughed to scorn.

So what happened? How did female legs (not to mention piano legs) lose their
lustful impact? Why are sex orgies not running rampant on our beaches,
considering the revealing swimwear of today?

The only thing that happened was, female ankles became a commonplace sight.
Extensive amounts of skin are routinely exposed on our beaches and in our
pools. That which is seen stops being mysterious and enticing. That which is
seen often, becomes absolutely commonplace and evokes little or no reaction at
all.

It worked with ankles. It worked with swimwear. Why wouldn't it work with any
part of the body?

We perceive that sexual deviancy is on the rise. Rapists, child molesters, and
sexual predators of all kinds seem to be coming out of the woodwork. The world
appears to be polarizing into two camps: those that want complete
licentiousness over sex to be the norm, and those who are clinging desperately
to a moral code that preserves the sanctity of sexual relations.

Into this mix drops the issue of nudity. People want to do something about the
perceived problems, but being human, they look for the quick, easy solution.

Their solution? Make everybody stay dressed. If we never see nudity anywhere,
then no problems can occur, right? Or, at the very least, we can better
contain the flood.

Norman Rockwell, the quintessentially wholesome painter, painted scenes of
skinnydipping with complete innocence. The Disney movie Pollyanna opened with
the nude buttocks of a skinnydipping boy. A half century ago, the YMCA
required skinnydipping in their pools, and their locker rooms and showers were
shared by both sexes up to a certain age. Many school facilities had the same
policy of nude swimming. As recent as a decade or two ago, skinnydipping was a
regular tradition among Boy Scouts. A generation ago, gang showers in schools
and locker rooms across the country was universal. Not too many years ago,
nudity was expected in the doctor's office at some point in an examination.

All of this has been abolished in the name of morality.

No skinnydipping occurs in YMCA pools. Nudity in locker rooms is a rarity--
virtually nonexistent among the younger generation. Gang showers have become
extinct--students now wander the halls smelling of sweat after gym class. The
Boy Scouts of America has officially banned skinnydipping. The television show
America's Funniest Home Videos will pixelate the nude bottom of even toddlers.
Wal-mart stores have destroyed families by calling the police on decent
parents in our communities who dare take a picture of their two-year-old in
the bathtub and have it developed there. Doctors are hesitant to ask for
nudity in their examinations-- and it's their job to examine human bodies.
Medical personnel these days are as likely to be disturbed by nudity, even in
medical situations, as regular people.

Why? Because if no one is ever naked with each other, people reason, then
sexual predators won't molest our children. Teenagers won't have sex together.
Kids won't make fun of other kids' bodies. We will all treat each other with
the respect we deserve. Right?

On Mars, maybe.

Sexual predators continue to prey. Teenagers continue to have sex with each
other. Pornography is becoming a bigger and bigger industry. Marital relations
are becoming more and more fragile. Kids are as cruel with each other as ever.

There was a time when family members would see each other nude out of
necessity--both male and female. Families on the frontier with a one room home
and a tub with water heated on the stove for a bath certainly didn't have the
luxury of bathing out of sight of one another. Countless stories exist in
American history of skinnydipping happening in a river, a lake, or the local
swimming hole, from young boys to presidents of the United States. Often these
would be same-sex experiences, but mixed sex skinnydipping happened as well.
None of these people skinnydipped for sexual reasons. They just wanted to
swim, and nude was the most practical way to do it.

These things no longer happen today. So are teenaged boys no longer aroused by
the sight of teenaged girls because they never see them naked? Are sexual
predators freed from their lust because they no longer get a chance to see
their victims nude, now that school showers, the YMCA, and the Boy Scouts have
gotten rid of traditional nude experiences? Is the craving for pornography
lessening, now that we've banned normal opportunities to see nudity?

People used to be able to learn that nudity didn't automatically cause lust.
Because they experienced nonsexual nudity, they knew it was possible. Today,
virtually nobody gets that opportunity. Today we train ourselves to equate
nudity with lust, just like Pavlov's dogs salivated at the sound of a bell.
So, not surprisingly, everyone today thinks nudity equals sex.

When are the only times most people get to see nudity? In movies during a sex
scene or a suggestive lathering up in the shower. Playing doctor with the
neighborhood kids under a pall of mystery and sexual tension and guilt.
Seducing one another to have sex. Playboy, Hustler, and other titillating
magazines. Even in marital relations, the nudity is often so rare outside of
sex that the sexual connotation remains.

This is an artificial state for humans to be in. Children are not born
equating nudity with anything, except perhaps comfort. They never would learn
to equate nudity with sex--or shame, or lust, or disgust--if they weren't,
from birth, emotionally conditioned to react that way. It's a steady,
constant, relentless conditioning that works on us emotionally every minute of
every day and night.

Ring the bell--salivate. See nudity--lust.

We hide our bodies from each other, then when the urge to know what bodies are
like overwhelms us, out of sheer desperation we go to great and ugly lengths
to see them. Our entire society is geared to training people to have unhealthy
attitudes toward sex and human bodies.

Normalizing the human body--allowing the human body to be seen in nonsexual
circumstances-- would work wonders in helping people develop healthy attitudes
toward each other, including their sexual relations. How much better would
society be if we allowed our children to grow up seeing human bodies in
controlled, supervised, wholesome situations (like family skinnydipping)
rather than banning such education from them and forcing them to find it on
their own through pornography, playing doctor, peeking into bedroom windows,
or having casual or predatory sex with one another?

Can anyone truly say that sexual attitudes in America are healthy these days?
Are things getting better? Are we more moral today than in earlier times
because we've banned all nudity?

Words like "modest" or "decent" are used to justify forcing people to wear
clothes. They are the everyday manifestation of the belief that nudity is
immoral. A modest, decent person would never expose his immoral nudity.

But what do these words actually mean? They have come to mean socially
acceptable clothing. But that's not their original meaning.

Modesty really means a lack of ostentation or boasting. It means avoiding
showiness or standing out. In fact, the Bible equates clothes with immodesty,
not modesty, because people use them to stand out and look superior to others.
How many passages of scripture condemn the "fine-twined linen" of haughty
people?

Certainly the obsession with fashion that our modern society suffers from
cannot be equated with modesty. We use clothing to show up our fellow human
beings, to appear better than them. We use clothing to decorate ourselves, to
make our bodies prettier. As if the handiwork of God wasn't beautiful enough.
Trying to stand out, to look better than others, to show off.

Immodesty.

Decency is a mental state and has nothing to do with clothing. To call nudity
"indecent" arises from the assumption that the only reason someone would be
naked would be for "indecent" intentions. But that is a patently false
assumption. There are many reasons why someone might prefer to be nude. To
assume a single, ugly motive is itself an ugly thing to do.

True modesty and decency have nothing to do with one's state of dress and
everything to do with one's state of mind. If I strut naked down Main Street
for the purpose of standing out and shocking people, that is certainly both
immodest and indecent. But not because of my state of dress. It's because of
my state of mind--my intentions.

If I skinnydip because I need the exercise or enjoy swimming and want to dress
in the most comfortable way possible and don't want to go waste money on
designer swimwear whose purpose is to look superior to other people, I am
being both modest and decent. I have no sexual intent. I'm not trying to shock
people. I can't dress more modestly than I am, because there's nothing
ostentatious about wearing nothing. I am both modest and decent under those
circumstances.

In fact, the only reason nudity is ostentatious or shocking under any
circumstances is because social custom, in cahoots with the law, forces it to
be. Nudity stands out because we force people to be clothed, whether they want
to be or not. If there was no law against nudity, if human bodies were seen
regularly, there would be nothing ostentatious or shocking about them. Nudity
would be a very modest form of dress--certainly more modest than a $1000
designer strapless gown whose purpose is to make other women green with envy
and to titillate the lust of men.

Children are born with no shame over nudity. We say that babies have no
modesty, but we're using the artificial definition of modesty when we say
that. We're equating modesty with clothing when we talk that way. The truth is
babies are totally modest--they can't be any other way. They have no concept
of showing off. Everything they do is modest, even when they are completely,
shamelessly naked.

The positive words "modesty" and "decency" have been corrupted to mean "shame
over one's body." Nudity is labeled immodest and indecent only because
somebody said it should be that way. In different cultures, different things
are labeled immodest. It's purely a function of culture. And it's purely
cultural chauvinism to suggest that your culture's definition of modesty is
the "moral" one.

Within a culture where nudity is accepted, nudity is modest.

It's an arbitrary choice for a culture to accept or reject nudity. There's no
natural reason behind it.

Modesty in dress is also a cop-out. It's a lazy form of morality. People can
pass themselves off as being "decent" merely by wearing conservative clothes,
while inside their minds, they are raging perverts. At the same time, people
who choose chaste social nudity are often labeled as perverts, when in fact
their motives are as innocent as can be. It's the people who can't see human
bodies without thinking "pervert" that are the ones with their minds in the
gutter.

Modesty in dress is simply a lazy way to label the morality of people without
going to the trouble of getting to know them. It's a classic example of man
judging the outward appearance rather than the heart.

It also promotes lazy morality in a more dangerous way. People don't have to
learn how to get control of their lustful feelings. They make others to do it
for them by forcing everyone to cover up their naked bodies. Like female
ankles a century or two ago. If a man ever saw a naked ankle on a woman, he
might not be able to control his lust.

In some modern cultures, women are required to hide their faces behind a veil,
or their entire bodies from head to toe under a burqa. The sight of a female
face is shameful and could set men off on a fit of lust. A woman of those
cultures caught nude will cover her face before any other part of her body.

Covered ankles, veiled faces--how foolish these systems of morality sound to
us modern Westerners! But what's the difference between their standard of
modesty and ours? Only degree. We suffer from the same irrational biases as
they do. We simply apply them to other body parts.

If forcing a woman to hide her face in the Middle East is oppressive to her,
even emotionally scarring, why isn't forcing a woman in modern America to hide
her breasts equally as oppressive?

The purpose of female breasts after all is to perform one of the most
important, wholesome, and innocent functions in all of human experience--
breastfeeding our children. Look at the inexcusable inconvenience we put a
mother through just to feed her infant: carefully pull the breast out of her
clothing underneath a towel in case someone catches a glimpse of it, exile her
to a special room for nursing mothers, or even make her sit in a public toilet
stall just to nourish her child. All because our society has defined female
breasts as shameful.

Don't you think societies who accept public breastfeeding look upon our
extreme prudishness with as much scorn as we look upon the notion of clothed
piano legs?

But what about the men who might catch a glimpse of the mother's breast? What
if they become filled with lust? Don't we need to hide naked female breasts
for that reason?

You mean like earlier societies needed to hide female ankles from the sight of
men?

Hiding a body part from sight doesn't kill lust for it. It causes that body
part to generate lust. Nobody gets excited at the sight of ankles anymore
because we see them constantly. If we saw breasts constantly, the same would
be true, and we would have no more reaction to them than to ankles.

What we would have is more women who would breastfeed their children because
it wouldn't be so inconvenient. We'd have fewer women getting cosmetic breast
surgery because we would diffuse the sexual connotation of female breasts. We
would have fewer body parts for men to sexually objectify, helping them to see
women more as human beings and less as objects for their sexual pleasure. We
would have less body shame among women as they see all the myriad shapes and
sizes of breasts in the world, and realize that theirs are not so strange
after all. We wouldn't have this artificial double standard in dress for men
and women, something which the courts are beginning to recognize as
unconstitutional and are striking down laws that forbid women to expose their
breasts while men are free to expose theirs.

Doesn't a moral code that forces mothers to hide in shame when they nurse
their babies strike you as a perverted moral code?

But everything just said about breasts could be said about any body part.

We don't consider ears sexual because we see them all the time. What if there
were a social custom to hide ears--and a law to back it up? Ears would become
very erotic. People would pay money to see naked ears.

What on earth is sexual about buttocks? They have absolutely no sexual
function whatsoever. Both men and women have the same buttock design--there is
no significant difference between a male and female buttock. Yet you can go to
jail if yours is exposed in public. It's considered a titillating thing to
wear a thong bathing suit, in spite of the utter lack of sexuality built into
the human butt.

Why? Because our customs and our laws artificially create sexuality in the
buttocks. If we could see nude butts regularly, not only would their sexually
titillating nature disappear, but we could all feel more comfortable about the
shape of our own buttocks, after comparing them to all the variety of cheeks
that are out there. A butt would be no more titillating than an ankle.

This may all be well and true, but at least we must keep the genuinely sexual
parts of our bodies covered, right? At the very least, we need to walk around
in G-strings, to keep those terrible, terrible genitals out of sight.

No, the fact is, even genitals are subject to the same phenomenon as any other
body part.

We fear genitals. We can actually become disgusted at the sight of them. But
why? Why should any part of our body generate such an emotional reaction? They
are parts of our body, and everybody has them. They are necessary to the
existence of the human race.

True, they are used in the act of sex--but not every minute of the day.
Buttocks are also used as a part of sexual arousal, and so are breasts. Ears
are nibbled on to produce excitement. Certainly lips and hands are an integral
part of the arousal process. Eyes are sexually attractive. In fact, any part
of the body can be used sexually. Yet every part of the body is not used
sexually during the vast majority of hours in the day. Days, weeks, months,
even years can go by without any part of the body being used for sex. This
goes for genitals as much as anything else.

The simple fact is that genitals are no more sexual than any other part of the
body--until we use them for sex.

The only reason we think of them as sexual all the time is the exact same
reason female ankles were once considered sexual all the time: we never see
them. If we saw human genitalia on a regular basis, they would stop being
sexual to us, just like ankles.

You don't believe this? That doesn't matter, because thousands and thousands
of nudists have proven that fact over and over again. It's not a debatable
issue.

Penises are the worst case for social stigma. Even in films or photographs
that show extensive, sexualized nudity, there is rarely a penis in view. Women
can be shown completely nude because their sex organs are mostly tucked away
out of sight. Men have theirs hanging out in full view.

Penises are still a socially acceptable object of scorn, even in this day of
political correctness that minimizes the number of things we can ridicule.
It's okay to show physical violence against a penis as a joke. It's okay to
make fun of the size of a penis. Try treating women's breasts like that and
see how you fare socially.

Penis size is probably a greater emotional issue for men than breast size is
for women. Part of that may be because women can't easily hide the size of
their breasts, so they are obliged to deal with the issue. Men can easily hide
the size of their penises, therefore they suffer more from fear of being
"discovered."

And that illustrates the whole point.

Because we never see penises, and because men are not a politically correct
form of human life, it's socially acceptable to traumatize them over the size
of their penises, over the fact that they have one at all, even for as trivial
a purpose as a joke.

If we could see penises on a regular basis, this would change. We could all
see what they're like, what amazing variety there is in shape and size among
them, and most important of all, become comfortable with them so they aren't a
mysterious and threatening body part.

"Mysterious and threatening body part." The very concept is insane. How can
anyone think that the idea of a mysterious and threatening body part is a
natural state for humans to be in? To fear part of the natural bodies we are
born with? How can that be considered a moral thing?

But, some people may say, I just don't like how genitals look. They're ugly,
and I don't want to see them.

Have you ever looked closely at an ear? A shriveled up, twisted growth of
flesh protruding out of both sides of the head. Ears are ugly! But nobody
notices, because we see ears all the time.

Genitals would be the same way--if we saw them regularly. They wouldn't look
ugly to us. We'd hardly notice them at all, just like we hardly notice ears.

Hiding our bodies behind clothing does not improve our morality. In fact, it
can't help but damage us emotionally. We are our bodies. It doesn't matter if
you believe your essence is a soul living inside your body. That's an
intellectual belief. Your subconscious, where your self-image originates,
can't see that distinction. For practical, everyday emotional purposes, you
are your body.

If you are ashamed of your body, you are ashamed of yourself. If you feel
traumatized at the thought of someone seeing your body, you're feeling
traumatized at someone seeing you.

When people put up emotional masks to hide and protect themselves from
interaction with other human beings, we universally agree this is an
emotionally destructive thing to do. We believe such people should learn to
trust people, to strip the masks away, to make themselves emotionally
vulnerable to others. Only in this way can they find fulfillment in life.

But what on earth makes you think clothing isn't one of those masks?

If we can't even let each other see our bodies without fear, sometimes
traumatizing fear, how much trust can we really have? How much emotional
openness can we expect among people? If you don't trust people to accept your
body as it is--in other words, accept you at your most basic level--how much
trust can you have in people to accept any part of you?

It's a common experience among those who practice social nudity that people
are much more open and friendly in that environment. This is true even when
the people aren't consciously, deliberately choosing to practice social
nudity. Go into a locker room and find a group of nude men as they shower, dry
off, or dress. Eavesdrop on their conversations. Often they will open up and
say things of a personal nature--even to strangers--that they wouldn't dare
talk about in any clothed situation.

We have many phrases that describe how cruel life is: dog-eat-dog world,
survival of the fittest, the school of hard knocks. We often talk about how
cruel children can be to one another. Why? Could it be because we're all
hiding behind masks, mistrustful of everyone else, trying only to survive and
protect ourselves, even at the expense of others, eternally afraid that
someone may discover our shameful, dark secrets? Isn't hiding our bodies
behind clothes an important symbolic part of this mask-wearing?

Those who practice chaste social nudity will respond with a resounding yes! It
seems so obvious to them. They're able to see it because they're the only ones
who have experiences on both sides of the question. They've been raised in a
clothes-compulsive society, but they've rejected that clothes-compulsiveness.
They've taken the step of stripping the mask off and standing exposed before
others. This is an act of courage and trust. It's not always easy to do. But
once done, how liberating it can be to toss aside the burden of shame and fear
that went with the mask.

No one would think that wearing a literal mask on our faces for our entire
lives could be an emotionally healthy thing. What would that do to our self-
esteem? How could we not end up feeling ashamed of our faces? How much would
it disrupt human interaction? How could this be anything but a bad thing?

Yet how is constantly wearing the mask of clothes throughout our lives any
different?

It's not any different. Most people can't see that because they've been
brainwashed all their lives to accept the mask of clothing. We would be just
as accepting of the custom of wearing a literal mask on our faces all our
lives if we were brainwashed to accept it from birth like we're brainwashed to
accept clothing.

But it would still be just as destructive.

The neurotic habit of hiding behind clothes for our entire lives is not
emotionally healthy. Therefore if we don't have a good reason to force people
to stay clothed, then it's immoral to force them to.

We think we have a good reason. Uncontrolled lust is a bad thing. It's the
reason we use to force people to stay dressed. You have to stay dressed to
control my lust, because my lust is uncontrollable at the sight of your body.

But that reason is a demonstrable falsehood. Forcing people to stay dressed
causes body parts to become objects of lust. It doesn't protect us from lust.

Rather than forcing people to stay dressed whether they want to or not because
we claim we can't control our lust if they don't, isn't it better to learn to
have no lust at the sight of a human body?

It's an easy lesson to learn. That's been proven by the fact that we no longer
need to force women to hide ankles or calves or knees. We see these body parts
all the time and remain in control of ourselves. Why would breasts and
buttocks and genitals be any different?

They wouldn't be.

"Modesty" in dress, rather than controlling lust, causes lust. Chaste nudity
is the ultimate form of modesty, because it doesn't make any body part
mysterious or titillating. No pressure of curiosity builds up. No sexual hot
spots are created by hiding only the "sexual" parts. No need to sneak peeks of
body parts that we're forbidden to see. We just see them and learn about them
and deal with them as easily as we deal with a naked ankle today.

Chaste nudity (in other words, true modesty) is the antidote to uncontrolled
lust, to addiction to pornography, to ignorance of human bodies, to the
tendency to treat human bodies as sexual objects for our gratification. Chaste
nudity makes us vulnerable in a positive way, teaching us to open up to others
and develop trust among each other.

The belief that nudity is immoral is a lie. Nudity has nothing to do with
sexual behavior, with lust, with immodesty or indecency. The human mind is
what chooses to play out those negative things, not the mere sight of a human
body.

Family Nudity

Found on the internet.

Our first 'planned' nude outing with friends happened this weekend.

Earlier in the week a cookout at our house had turned into an impromptu
nude swim session in our pool. We discovered while not 'social nudists' per se
that we all spent a lot of time that way around home.

To make a long story short we agreed to visit in their home with the idea
we'd be nude from the start. I spent a lot of time thinking about this and
Saturday morning called up Karen to make sure she and Mike were still 'OK'
with the idea. She reassured me that she was and looking forward to it.

I was looking forward to it, also, but was still somewhat nervous. At our
home it had evolved in a 'natural way'. Here we were planning on going to
another couple's home - we've known them for sometime - and in essence ' strip
on arrival'.

Not to belabor the story with details, but one of my biggest decisions was
what to wear to some place where I was going to wear nothing. It must be a gal
thing because Elliott just through on a pair of shorts and a polo shirt.
Finally, I decided on a simple 'T-shirt' type dress (it's really a bathing
suit cover-up). No bra/underwear, and slide sandals. This way I could get
naked quick - but if they had changed their minds I would still be well
covered.

They only live a few minutes away so the drive was a short one. Walking up
to their front door, my heart was pounding. I was carrying a cake that I had
baked for dessert. Elliott had a bottle of sparkling grape juice (neither
family drinks).

Mike answered the door wearing only a towel. I was somewhat relieved when
Karen came out of the kitchen to greet us. She was completely nude - I felt a
lot more at ease because she was the one who had appeared to hesitate at the
pool party. Then came my hard part - stripping in front of friends. Someone
once suggested that one should get it over with quickly so the awkwardness
would pass quickly. So I took a deep breath and said, “Since we won't be
needing them where can we put our clothes ?”

They showed us to a guest bedroom off the main entrance I quickly kicked
off my sandals and pulled the dress over my head. Elliott took off his shirt
and shorts and laid them with my stuff on a chair. I'm glad they offered the
room - it was easier to walk out already naked than it would have been to get
that way in front of them. By this time Mike had tossed his towel and so we
were ready for our nude evening.

There were a few nervous laughs but after about five minutes we went about
making sandwiches and settling down for an evening of old movies from Mike's
collection. In reading about "nude etiquette" Karen had put out big oversized
towels on the couch and chairs.

To tell you how much fun we had I think I honestly forgot I was nude. When
it was time to leave, I kissed Mike and Karen on the cheek and thanked them
for a wonderful evening. As I was heading toward the door Elliott asked,
“Forgetting something ? Or are you going home that way ?”

I had forgotten to dress. A streak of daring hit - and since it was after
1:00 a.m. I took him up on it. He put on his shorts but carried my clothes to
the car. I rode home nude and stayed that way until sometime Sunday afternoon.
(It really wasn't that daring. You can't see the street from their driveway or
ours and the ride was all of five minutes.)

Now that we've had nude encounters in each other's homes I don't know if
we'll have to plan them - I think we'll just take them for granted.

We are born naked. Everyone knows that.

But the moment we leave the womb, we are wrapped in a blanket, and the
skin hardly ever sees the light of day again. For the next 70+ years of life,
we wrap our skin in a cocoon of fabric.

Is this healthy for our bodies? Were our bodies designed to be forever
clothed? If you believe in evolution, the answer has to be no. Of course
evolution didn't create a body designed for clothing.

If you believe in the Judeo-Christian divine creation of the human body,
the answer must still be no. Adam and Eve lived naked in the garden of Eden.
That's what their bodies were designed to do.

Why have this magnificent organ of skin enveloping our entire bodies,
every square inch of it covered with delicate sensory nerves and sophisticated
temperature regulation pores, then wrap it up 24/7 in artificial coverings so
it's all useless? Clothing can keep us warm in extreme conditions. But in
other cases, it actually interferes with the body's natural temperature
regulation processes. It's obvious that a hot day would be much easier to
tolerate nude than clothed. But those with experience can also testify that
the nude body is able to comfortably withstand cool temperatures much easier
than most people think, because clothes aren't interfering with the body's
attempt to regulate internal temperature.

Protection against cold, against the elements, against injury while
performing risky activities--these are good reasons for covering the
miraculous organ of skin with clothing. But how can it possibly be healthy to
never let it "breathe"--at least for an hour or two every day?

Experts are now starting to tell us that children are not getting enough
sun. Between the hysteria of always remaining clothed and the latest fear
craze of developing skin cancer, children are suffering from a vitamin D
deficiency, even to the point where that supposedly archaic disease of rickets
is beginning to return.

(By the way, it's much easier to notice a malignant skin tumor early
enough for successful treatment if you let other people see you naked now and
then.)

Physical health is only one aspect of nudity. What about our emotional
health?

Who are we? We are our bodies. Whatever attitude we have toward our bodies
is the attitude we have toward ourselves.

And what is the attitude we have toward our bodies? Shame.

This shame may very well be the most pervasive emotional conditioning of
our lives. We prefer to call it brainwashing because it's forced upon us
throughout our lives, warps our natural attitudes toward our and others'
bodies, and is a deeply emotional, irrational process. Emotional abuse, in our
opinion.

Is there a child on earth who is born with an aversion to nudity? Does any
child care about nude bodies? Does seeing a nude body mean anything at all to
a young child? Does being nude mean anything to a child, other than perhaps a
more comfortable state of dress to be in than having clothing pressed against
one's body?

What child wouldn't love to rip his or her clothes off and run around
naked, just for the simple pleasure of it?

So where does the negative reaction to nudity come from?

Do kids grow into it naturally? Nonsense! All the societies in the history
of humankind that have accepted public nudity or near-nudity would never have
existed were this true.

No, the negative reaction to nudity must be brainwashed into children. And
how is that done?

Through shame. Children won't leave clothes on unless we shame or threaten
them into doing it.

Now why isn't that emotional abuse?

From the moment of birth, when they wrap that blanket around the newborn,
we are emotionally conditioned to think of our bodies as shameful. Every
minute of every day of our lives, with rare exceptions, the brainwashing is
reinforced. Every moment we cover our bodies we are communicating the
subliminal message to our subconscious that our bodies are shameful and must
be hidden.

Every minute of every day. Is there any other type of emotional
conditioning we are immersed in more?

Even our moments of nudity do not save us. When we bathe, we go into a
private bathroom, close and often lock the door, pull the shower curtain, and
shower nude--all alone out of sight of others. Bodily functions are done the
same way.

Not even doctor's offices or locker rooms give us a break anymore. The
hysterical fear of nudity in our society has become so great that nudity has
almost disappeared entirely from these locales traditionally designed to
accept nudity. In the doctor's office we remain covered up with our clothing
or with hospital gowns, only revealing small patches of our skin when
absolutely necessary. Locker rooms, saunas, etc., have lost the tradition of
nudity within them. This isn't even mixed group nudity we're talking about.
Even among our own sex we hide our bodies, either by not being nude at all, or
by changing in a stall, or by keeping a towel carefully wrapped around
ourselves.

Even when we are nude, we hide our bodies in shame. Every minute of every
day.

We swim with clothes on, even though that's insane. We sleep with clothes
on, even though we're tucked away under a blanket where no one will see us. We
even stay dressed in front of our spouse--our sex partner--who has already
seen us naked in the most intimate of circumstances and with whom more than
anyone else we ought to feel comfortable being naked. Even in the privacy of
our homes we stay dressed. Why?

We do it because body shame has been so deeply ingrained into our psyche
that we can't imagine doing anything else. Nudity under virtually all
circumstances seems so foreign to us that we can't see it as anything but a
bizarre aberration, if not a downright perversion.

But we all have a body. There are billions and billions of human bodies
spread throughout this world. Within the two sexes, every one of them is the
same as every other. We all know what they look like--we all know what
equipment they have. What on earth do we think we're hiding from each other?

Actually, we are not thinking at all when we have a negative reaction to
nudity, whether we see others nude or others see us nude. It's purely an
emotional, irrational reaction, based on a lifetime of deep, thorough
emotional conditioning.

Emotional abuse.

Isn't it emotional abuse to condition your children to have feelings of
shame and horror simply because someone accidentally sees them naked?

Isn't it emotional abuse to condition your children to feel shock, fear,
or disgust at the mere sight of a human body?

Our bodies are ourselves. When we feel shame, fear, horror over bodies, we
are feeling those feelings about ourselves or about our fellow human beings.

No wonder people have such a hard time relating to each other. We fear
each other at a very basic level. We are all forced by nature or God to carry
naked bodies with us wherever we go! Those dreadful, shocking, shameful naked
bodies! What was God thinking?

How can we possibly interact normally with each other, steeped in
attitudes like that?

Exactly what negative consequences result from shaming children into
wearing clothes, and continuing that brainwashing process until the day they
die?

Children are left in ignorance. We think it's a wonderful, educational
thing to take children to the zoo. But what do they do at the zoo? Stare at
the naked bodies of animals. This is considered very educational. And it is.

Yet children are never allowed to stare at the naked bodies of the species
that is most important for them to learn about. Their own--human beings. It's
great for them to learn all about the bodies of lions and tigers and bears, oh
my! But never the body of the species they belong to and will marry. Never the
body they live within throughout their lives.

Children don't get to fully understand and accept the differences between
the sexes. Boys have penises, girls have vaginas. This is an undisputed fact
of life. But to a boy who is not allowed to learn about human bodies, a girl
does not have a vagina--she has been castrated of her penis. To a girl, a boy
doesn't have a penis--he has a strange growth where his vagina should be. And
these are the boys and girls lucky enough to have caught a glimpse of the
opposite sex naked.

Then we wonder why there is so much sexual dysfunction in marriages?

Children don't get to become comfortable with the process of puberty
before it happens. When their bodies start changing, it's a traumatic thing.
Why? Because it's natural for puberty to be traumatic?

Absolutely not! It's a completely natural part of the human life cycle.

It's traumatic because they are not prepared for it. Is that not emotional
abuse?

They start growing hair around their pubic area and within their armpits.
What is that all about? For boys, the penis enlarges (is it diseased?) and
hair begins to grow on the face. For girls, the vagina begins to bleed (am I
injured?) and breasts being to enlarge on their chests.

How many horror stories have there been about children who were totally
unprepared for these changes? Is that not child abuse, to allow children to
enter this period of life unprepared simply because their parents are
embarrassed to talk about it (thanks to their own emotional brainwashing from
their parents)?

But even with children who have been "educated" about puberty, is the
trauma completely absent? No, because the education is lacking in a vital
area. Words cannot communicate anywhere near as effectively as images can. You
can talk all day to a boy about how penises or to a girl about how breasts
come in all sizes and shapes, but it won't remove the fear that their penis or
breasts are abnormal. But if they have opportunities to see penises and
breasts in all their amazing variety, the point is driven home that their body
is just as normal and acceptable as anyone else's.

Children are not allowed to satisfy their perfectly natural curiosity when
it's safe to do so. Adults have sex hormones raging through their bodies.
Prepubescent children do not. When would be the best time of life to learn
about human bodies?

Before children have to start dealing with sexual urges.

Yet, astoundingly, we think the most terrible thing of all is to allow a
child to see an adult naked. What tragedy!

Instead, we force children to wait until they enter puberty. Then they not
only have to deal with their curiosity driven by a natural and wholesome
desire to become educated, but also driven by these brand new, nearly
overwhelming sexual urges. They get it all dumped on them at once and are left
alone to deal with it on their own.

Is it any wonder there is sexual dysfunction in our society? Is it any
wonder teen sexual activity and pregnancy and venereal disease run rampant in
our society?

Is this not true child abuse?

Make no mistake about it, once children reach puberty, they will start
educating themselves, one way or another. If parents or some other adult
authority figure doesn't help them do it, they will do it on their own.

And we all know how they will do it.

They will gather misinformation from friends as ignorant as themselves.
They will develop addictions to pornography. They will experiment with nudity
and sex among themselves, ignorant of the dangers involved. And they will do
it all with a ghastly emotional stew of sexual arousal, shame, guilt, and
rebellion mixed into it.

Oh yes, this is much better than allowing children to experience nudity
under careful adult supervision before their sexual hormones start to flow.

An adult allowing a child to see him or her nude is child abuse? No, no.
The law that criminalizes letting a child see an adult nude is child abuse.

Nudity that is intended to be shocking or sexual or threatening or lewd
through the individual's intent and behavior--now that's child abuse. But
legally defining the mere existence of nudity as lewdness or obscenity is an
evil, archaic notion that must be stamped out.

Children are never taught to accept the aging cycle of human beings.
Everyone dreads getting old. We think old bodies are ugly. We fear them. For
God's sake, cover them up! And lo and behold, look at the youth-worshiping
culture we now have. Coincidence?

Billions of dollars are spent on cosmetics, clothing, even surgery, to try
and pretend we're not getting old. Why? Because we fear it. Why? Because we
never see it.

Because we constantly hide our bodies from one another, we never get to
see the natural aging life cycle of human bodies. That which is hidden from us
is mysterious and frightening.

If we could simply see human bodies in all the different stages of aging
on a regular basis, it would be a familiar sight to us, a comfortable sight.
Aging would be a natural thing, not something to fight tooth and nail in
dread.

Is it not emotional abuse to teach people to fear the natural life cycles
of their own bodies?

Children, like all people, equate their bodies with themselves. They are
their bodies. If we teach them to be afraid and ashamed of their bodies (and
we do), they will be ashamed of themselves. And thus a rampant epidemic of
self-loathing thrives in our culture.

Especially our girls. The most beautiful women in the world still think
there's something wrong with their bodies.

Children are killing themselves over poor self-image. The girl that purges
or starves herself to death because she can't accept her body is a victim of
the self-loathing that anti-nude attitudes help to foster. The gang banger who
carries a gun and kills someone for "dissing" him is literally killing
children over self-esteem. "You disrespect me, you die."

And where does this rampant lack of self-esteem come from? The causes are
complex, but how can the lifelong shame we feel over our own bodies not be a
contributor?

Our luxury of hiding nudity from each other may even be killing our
children. Never mind emotional abuse. This is physical abuse of the ugliest
kind. All because we don't want to see a nude human body.

That's where the true shame lies, not in our bodies!

Many children never get to feel totally comfortable with the opposite sex
and never get an adequate education on human bodies to satisfy their
curiosity. Most children will not tolerate this situation forever. If the
adult community won't satisfy their need for knowledge in safe, appropriate,
supervised environments, they will do it on their own. They will do it in any
way they can. Since the adult community forbids them from experiencing nudity
in safe, wholesome ways, they will resort to other means.

As they resort to other means, their normal, natural desire to satisfy
curiosity gets mixed up with all sorts of negative feelings. Guilt, shame,
embarrassment, self-loathing, fear of punishment. Because these negative
emotions keep many children from doing too much experimenting before puberty,
experimenting happens after puberty when the powerful sex drive overcomes the
negative emotions.

So now we have guilt, shame, embarrassment, fear, and self-loathing
associated with sexual arousal too. And we expect healthy adult relations to
develop from this?

Because the adolescent feels all these negative emotions associated with
normal and natural curiosity and sexual urges, and because the adolescent is
still trying to develop effective skills at relating with the opposite sex,
that adolescent will feel intimidated by the opposite sex.

So what will some adolescents do? Resort to less intimidating individuals
to do their experimenting with. Resort to younger children.

And a possible sexual predator is born.

Do I even need to point out how this is emotional abuse?

Our society in the last few decades has become more and more antagonistic
toward nudity. Where once skinnydipping was the norm among Boy Scouts and
required at YMCA pools, where once locker rooms were actually used to change
clothes in, where once doctor's offices were a place where doctors could
easily access the human body they were supposed to give medical attention to,
we now have a near absence of nudity anywhere in normal life.

Nowhere can we find wholesome, nonsexual images of the nude human body.
Nowhere can we enjoy the affirming, even healing experience of being nude in
front of someone else and be accepted for who we are. We have forfeited all
images of the human body to those who would portray it in sexual and degrading
ways. All because, from birth, we are brainwashed into believing nudity is
harmful.

And why do we do that to our children? Because our parents did it to us.
Because their parents did it to them. And so on and so on.

When will we break this destructive cycle?

No one ever tries, because no one ever thinks about it. You don't question
something that has been brainwashed into you every minute of your life since
birth.

But we need to question it. The emotional and physical health of our
children are at stake. In some cases, even their very lives are at stake.
Aren't these important enough reasons to question something you've simply
assumed was true all your life?

Family Skinnydippers is very serious about these issues. Perhaps now you
can understand why social nudity is so important to us. This is not merely a
lifestyle choice. This is not merely the enjoyment of nude recreation. This is
a vital cause to us. It's a cause we feel is worth fighting and sacrificing
for.

Do we demand constant nudity?

Of course not. There are many times when nudity would be uncomfortable,
even downright unhealthy.

Do we demand that everyone be nude, whether they like it or not?

Perish the thought. That would be as immoral as using the law to force
everyone to wear clothes all the time.

All we ask is that those who wish to be nude under reasonable
circumstances be allowed to do so. Not for shock value, not for sexual
titillation, not for confrontational purposes, not for exhibitionist urges.
Simply because nudity is a natural, comfortable, pleasant, wholesome, healthy
thing to be every so often. Those who enjoy it ought to be able to do so.
Those who don't enjoy it don't have to do it at all.

But what if a person is offended at nudity?

Our blunt answer to that person: grow up. Why should people be forced by
threat of law to do something they strongly disagree with, if the only harm to
you is that you choose (emphasis on the word choose) to be offended?

The amazing truth that our society has a hard time grasping because the
brainwashing is so pervasive, is that human beings get used to nudity very
quickly. How can a lifetime of brainwashing be overcome literally within
hours, if not minutes? That's a testament to how unnatural and pointless the
brainwashing was in the first place.

If you're afraid you'll be shocked at the nudity of others, that will wear
off quickly. If you're afraid you'll be sexually aroused at the sight of
nudity, perhaps you will be for a while. But even that loses its power in a
short time. The overwhelming realization of the vast majority of people who
are finally exposed to normal, nonsexual nudity after a lifetime of
brainwashing is that it was never a big deal in the first place.

The only embarrassment we need to feel about nudity is how frightened over
nothing we were all our lives.

My 12-year old daughter came home from school the other today and was clearly
upset. She couldn't wait to talk to me about something. Sensing her anxiety, I
casually asked, "What's up?"

She said, "Somebody at school today said that when I go to Junior High
next year, I'll have to change my clothes, shower, and be naked in front of my
friends. Is that true?"

I raised at least one eyebrow and said, "I don't know. It used to be
true," in a slightly disappointed tone of voice.

"Why would they make fun of you and why would it matter if they did?" I
asked.

"I don't like being made fun of. And I don't like to be seen naked," she
said.

"Why is that?" I calmly asked again.

"Because I don't look like a supermodel!" she replied with animated hand
gestures and with seeming frustration with my apparent lack of ability to be
able to understand the point she was trying to get at.

"Well, none of us really do," I replied. At this point it was time to eat
dinner, and the conversation ended, at least for the time being.

It's very sad to me that, despite whatever efforts I have tried to make,
my daughter obviously feels some shame, or lack of measuring up to what she
thinks would be other's expectations of her, associated with her own body. I
did try very hard not to teach that. To this very day, she has yet to close a
bathroom door while showering or taking a bath. And regardless of who in the
family happens to walk into the bathroom, it seems to go largely ignored. Most
of the time she doesn't even change clothes for her showers/baths in the
bathroom, causing her to take the hallway trip in at most a towel. Not that
many years ago, her mother was alarmed because she tended to roam the whole
house nude around shower time, even when friends were visiting. How times
change, and how quickly.

Where does this "teaching" come from? It surely is difficult to avoid. She
is clearly aware that I don't hide from her, and probably assumes (correctly)
I'm not bothered in a locker room, which she knows I visit daily. In fact,
we've talked about that quite directly before, when I've taken her swimming at
the same place. Too bad that unless I miss my guess, there will be an
expectation of no nudity when she does get to Junior High, thus reinforcing
the developing attitude. No doubt the unenlightened concept of absolute
"modesty in dress" will follow.

I'm left to conclude that my own very intentional example of common nudity
around the house is insufficient to prevent my children from acquiring
society's commonplace "body shame." I have been nude often in my own home, so
much so that the other morning, as I was getting ready to leave for work, not
having dressed yet, I was nude and my daughter seemed to not even notice. At
least around bathtime and such, my children are also openly nude around the
house. Yet the body shame has developed to a clearly unhealthy degree in my
daughter, despite my efforts. The messages of the world have overwhelmed the
message I have tried to teach by example.

Those parents who think they are doing their children sufficient good by
restricting the nudity their children experience to their home are deluding
themselves. No matter how attractive the safety and security of this
limitation may seem, we are not making sufficient progress at inoculating our
children against body shame. The messages from other sources are simply too
powerful and too overwhelming. All one has to do is visit a public locker room
these days and see if you can find anybody at all under the age of 40 who is
simply and comfortably showering nude and changing their clothes. We have sold
our hearts, minds, and souls to those who would pervert and make shameful the
most incredible wonder and beauty found in every single human body ever
created.

In the face of McCulloch's arguments that living beings are nothing but highly
complex machines, Kroitor insists that there is something more: "Many people
feel that in the contemplation of nature and in communication with other
living things, they become aware of some kind of force, or something, behind
this apparent mask which we see in front of us, and they call it God."

It is an energy field created by all living things, even things like Gaia.

"It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."

The Force can enhance natural physical and mental abilities, including
strength (such as during a "Force jump" or to slow a fall from an otherwise
dangerous height) and accuracy (as when Luke Skywalker was able to launch
proton torpedoes into a two-meter-wide thermal exhaust port on the Death Star
in A New Hope). A number of other force powers are demonstrated in the film
series including telekinesis, telepathy, levitation, deep hypnosis, enhanced
empathy, reflexes and precognition. The Jedi were also able to influence and
control the minds of others.

the ability to heal or drain the life-force of others, increase resistance to
attack, warp space and to dissipate energy attacks

While potential for Force-sensitivity is established at birth, awareness,
experience and training are necessary to harness the power of the Force.

Midi-chlorians are microscopic life-forms that reside within the cells of all
living things and communicate with the Force. They are symbionts with all
other living things and without them life could not exist.

All living beings have a base element in the tissues that constitute the
organism -- the cell. From a structural point of view, there are two types of
cells: the eucaryotic (present in animals and plants) and the procaryotic
(which can be found in more simple life forms, like bacteria). Residing in
the eucaryotic cell's cytoplasm are the cell organelles called mitochondria
(in animals) and chloroplast (in plants).

These little microscopic organisms actually live in a symbiotic relationship
with our cells, resembling the relationship related by Master Qui-Gon Jinn.
Without them, life as we know it could not exist. From here, a very
reasonable question may be asked: How can we talk about a symbiotic
relationship when, apparently, we basically have cell structures "doing their
job"? Well, according to several authors, there is considerable evidence that
bacteria may have played an unexpected role in the evolution of eucaryotic
cells. It is thought that at some stage in evolution, bacteria invaded a
primitive eucaryotic cell. Instead of causing harm, the bacteria provided
respiratory (in animals) and photosynthetic (in plants) abilities previously
lacking in the cell. Both benefited from this association and each gradually
became dependent on the other. The bacteria eventually changed to become
mitochondria and chloroplast, which are responsible for respiration and
photosynthesis, respectively. The idea of a procaryotic origin for eucaryotic
organelles is know as the Endosymbiotic Theory.2 According to this statement,
we have microscopic life forms that, for no explainable reason, invaded cells
and adapted themselves to this new environment with such success that,
nowadays they are actually living as one single individual together with the
cell. In George Lucas's galaxy, the reason for the symbiotic relationship
that living organisms have with midi-chlorians is not explained either.
Probably because this event took place long before anyone could have recorded
it; it is likely as ancient as life itself. Therefore, it can be logical to
assume that it happened in a similar way as on Earth. Call it Nature or the
Will of the Force.

Another piece of biological evidence that supports the Endosymbiotic theory is
the organelle's structure itself, which by analogy can be applied to the midi-
chlorians. Although mitochondria are organelles of eucaryotic cells, they
resemble procaryotic cells in several ways. For instance, they contain their
own ribossomes, which are procaryotic type. They also contain their own DNA,
which, like procaryotic DNA, is a single circular double-stranded molecule.
Mitochondria divide to form new mitochondria in much the same way that a
procaryotic cell divides, and they divide independently of the cell nucleus
(however, they are unable to divide if they are removed from the cytoplasm).2
By this behavior we realize that even within the cell, these organelles behave
themselves as different individuals but, on the other hand, they can not
survive independently.

Nevertheless, a direct relationship is shown in the movies between the midi-
chlorian count in someone's cells and that person's predisposition to acquire
Jedi abilities. To support this we can see Obi-Wan Kenobi's astonished
reaction when he realizes that Anakin's count is at a higher level than Yoda's
in Star Wars's first episode, The Phantom Menace.

Activities in a cell require energy, whether for macromolecular synthesis or
for transport of substances through or out of the cytoplasm. Mitochondria are
cytoplasmatic organelles where energy-rich molecules of adenosine tri-
phosphate (ATP) are generated during a biochemical process called Aerobic
Respiration. Because of this function, the mitochondria are called "power
houses" of eucaryotic cells.2 So, the mitochondria provide animals the energy
required for all cell activities. These activities also include the basic
ones, like breathing, the heart beat, muscular contractions, etc. To sum up,
life would never be possible the way we know it, if it not for the cell
organelle's functions, simply because our organisms would not be able to
acquire the necessary energy to perform basic and vital functions. The fuel
molecules (such as glucose) that result from partial degradation of food enter
mitochondria, whose primary function is to convert the potential chemical
energy of fuel molecules into a form that the cell can use: the energy rich
molecule called ATP. Mitochondria are the cell's power plants.3

In Star Wars, the Force is referred to multiple times as a source of energy
that surrounds us everywhere. According to Master Qui-Gon, when at peace a
Jedi can hear the midi-chlorians. Assuming the midi-chlorians have similar
functions in the Star Wars galaxy to the mitochondria functions in planet
Earth, a Jedi can become one with the Force and communicate with these cell's
energy providers. Analyzing this fact, it no longer becomes surprising where
the Jedi extract the energy to, for an example, challenge gravity when it is
required. On this basis, the use of the Force for this physical purpose could
be explained from a biological point of view, resulting from the midi-
chlorians direct action, under the influence of this sort of communication
with their symbiotic partner. This brings an all-new meaning to the sentence,
"Use the Force."

Apart from all that has been said, one gap can be found in George Lucas's
story. In the movies we are lead to believe that the Force is an inherited
character trait. Luke Skywalker, when revealing the truth to his sister Leia
says: "The Force is strong in my family. My father has it, I have it..."
making the viewers understand that it passes from father to child.4 In the
prequels, this idea is strengthened on Tatooine when, realizing Anakin's
predisposition to the Force, Master Qui-Gon asks his mother Shmi about
Anakin's father's origins, trying to find a reasonable explanation for the
boy's relationship to the Force.

When it comes to the cell organelles, due to the fact that the eggs of most
species contain large amounts of cytoplasm, and sperm contain almost no
cytoplasm, the mitochondria in a zygote come from the cytoplasm of the female
parent's egg, even though half the zygote is nuclear chromosomes come from the
male parent.3 This is commonly known as Maternal Inheritance. Because most
of the mitochondria in the zygote come from the egg, most of the mitochondria
in the developing animal will be derived from its mother.3 So, here we have a
disagreement regarding the biological similarity between midi-chlorians in the
Star Wars galaxy and our own cell organelles. If an analogy were to be made
relating to this fact, it would be more reasonable that the Force's
inheritance would mostly occur from the mother to her offspring rather than
from the father.

Nevertheless, it is also said that chloroplast and mitochondria are complex
organelles and only a minority of their functions is maternally inherited.3
From this statement, it is understood that the organelles' functions do not
depend grandiosely on progenitors but rather on the individual they are one
with, and more particularly on its needs. Making the comparison with Star
Wars, the midi-chlorians' functions, resulting in the expressing of the Force
in an individual, may result from a small dose of parental legacy combined
with a major portion of the individual character they are symbiotic with.
Adding that with the Force's ability to chose the ones most suitable to
perform the task and we have the Jedi.

To sum up, it is obvious that George Lucas has taken a perfect terrestrial
biological fact and transported it to his (not so) make-believe galaxy. Even
the word midi-chlorian has the prefix chlor- as in chloroplast. He added a
little bit of mythology, directly connecting the midi-chlorians as physical
agents of the Force, and came up with the source for a basic explanation to
the physical stunts performed by the Jedi, which have been, so far, impossible
to explain, from a scientific point of view. Until now.

Extrasensory perception (ESP) involves reception of information not gained
through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind. The term was
coined by Frederic Myers, and adopted by Duke University psychologist J. B.
Rhine to denote psychic abilities such as telepathy, clairaudience, and
clairvoyance, and their trans-temporal operation as precognition or
retrocognition. ESP is also sometimes casually referred to as a sixth sense,
gut instinct or hunch, which are historical English idioms. The term implies
acquisition of information by means external to the basic limiting assumptions
of science, such as that organisms can only receive information from the past
to the present.

The term parapsychology was coined in or around 1889 by philosopher Max
Dessoir, and originates from para meaning "alongside", and psychology. The
term was adopted by J.B. Rhine in the 1930s as a replacement for the term
psychical research. Parapsychologists study a number of ostensible paranormal
phenomena, including telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis,
near-death experiences, reincarnation and apparitional experiences.

Nobel Laureate Brian David Josephson and some other proponents of
parapsychology have spoken of "irrational attacks on parapsychology" which
stem from the difficulties of "putting these phenomona into our present system
of the universe". Josephson contends that some scientists feel uncomfortable
about ideas such as telepathy and that their emotions sometimes get in the way
when making evaluations. He compares this situation to that of Alfred
Wegener's hypothesis of continental drift, where there was initially great
resistance to acceptance despite the strength of the evidence. Only after
Wegener's death did evidence lead to a gradual change of opinion and ultimate
acceptance of his ideas.

"I'm interested in the kind of system where simple units together do
behave in complicated ways," she said.

No one gives orders in an ant colony, yet each ant decides what to do
next.

For instance, an ant may have several job descriptions. When the colony
discovers a new source of food, an ant doing housekeeping duty may suddenly
become a forager. Or if the colony's territory size expands or contracts,
patroller ants change the shape of their reconnaissance pattern to conform to
the new realities. Since no one is in charge of an ant colony - including the
misnamed "queen," which is simply a breeder - how does each ant decide what to
do?

This kind of undirected behavior is not unique to ants, Gordon said. How
do birds flying in a flock know when to make a collective right turn? All
anchovies and other schooling fish seem to turn in unison, yet no one fish is
the leader.

Gordon studies harvester ants in Arizona and, both in the field and in her
lab, the so-called Argentine ants that are ubiquitous to coastal California.

Argentine ants came to Louisiana in a sugar shipment in 1908. They were
driven out of the Gulf states by the fire ant and invaded California, where
they have displaced most of the native ant species. One of the things Gordon
is studying is how they did so. No one has ever seen an ant war involving the
Argentine species and the native species, so it's not clear whether they are
quietly aggressive or just find ways of taking over food resources and
territory.

The Argentine ants in her lab also are being studied to help her
understand how they change behavior as the size of the space they are
exploring varies.

"The ants are good at finding new places to live in and good at finding
food," Gordon said. "We're interested in finding out how they do it."

Her ants are confined by Plexiglas walls and a nasty glue-like substance
along the tops of the boards that keeps the ants inside. She moves the walls
in and out to change the arena and videotapes the ants' movements. A computer
tracks each ant from its image on the tape and reads its position so she has a
diagram of the ants' activities.

The motions of the ants confirm the existence of a collective.

"A colony is analogous to a brain where there are lots of neurons, each of
which can only do something very simple, but together the whole brain can
think. None of the neurons can think ant, but the brain can think ant, though
nothing in the brain told that neuron to think ant."

For instance, ants scout for food in a precise pattern. What happens when
that pattern no longer fits the circumstances, such as when Gordon moves the
walls?

"Ants communicate by chemicals," she said. "That's how they mostly
perceive the world; they don't see very well. They use their antennae to
smell. So to smell something, they have to get very close to it.

"The best possible way for ants to find everything - if you think of the
colony as an individual that is trying to do this - is to have an ant
everywhere all the time, because if it doesn't happen close to an ant, they're
not going to know about it. Of course, there are not enough ants in the colony
to do that, so somehow the ants have to move around in a pattern that allows
them to cover space efficiently."

Keeping in mind that no one is in charge of a colony and that there is no
central plan, how do the ants adjust their reconnaissance if their territory
expands or shrinks?

"No ant told them, 'OK, guys, if the arena is 20 by 20. . . .' Somehow
there has to be some rule that individual ants use in deciding to change the
shape of their paths so they cover the areas effectively. I think that that
rule is the rate in which they bump into each other."

The more crowded they are, the more often each ant will bump into another
ant. If the area of their territory is expanded, the frequency of contact
decreases. Perhaps, Gordon thinks, each ant has a threshold for normality and
adjusts its path shape depending on how often the number of encounters exceeds
or falls short of that threshold.

If the territory shrinks, the number of contacts increases and the ant
alters its search pattern. If it expands, contact decreases and it alters the
pattern a different way.

In the Arizona harvester ants, Gordon studies tasks besides patrolling.
Each ant has a job.

"I divide the tasks into four: foraging, nest maintenance, midden [piling
refuse, including husks of seeds] and patrolling - patrollers are the ones
that come out first in the morning and look for food. The foragers go where
the patrollers find food.

"The colony has about eight different foraging paths. Every day it uses
several of them. The patrollers go out first on the trails and they attract
each other when they find food. By the end of an hour's patrolling, most
patrollers are on just a few trails. . . . All the foragers have to do is go
where there are the most patrollers."

Each ant has its prescribed task, but the ants can switch tasks if the
collective needs it. An ant on housekeeping duty will decide to forage. No one
told it to do so and Gordon and other entomologists don't know how that
happens.

"No ant can possibly know how much food everybody is collecting, how many
foragers are needed," she said. "An ant has to have very simple rules that
tell it, 'OK, switch and start foraging.' But an ant can't assess globally how
much food the colony needs.

"I've done perturbation experiments in which I marked ants according to
what task they're doing on a given day. The ants that were foraging for food
were green, those that were cleaning the nest were blue and so on. Then I
created some new situation in the environment; for example, I create a mess
that the nest maintenance workers have to clean up or I'll put out extra food
that attracts more foragers.

"It turns out that ants that were marked doing a certain task one day
switch to do a different task when conditions change."

Of about 8,000 species of ants, only about 10 percent have been studied
thus far.

"It's hard to generalize anything about the behavior of ants," Gordon
said. "Most of what we know about ants is true of a very, very small number of
species compared to the number of species out there."

Army ants: a collective intelligence?

Put a hundred army ants on a flat surface and they will walk around in
never decreasing circles until they die from exhaustion. But a colony of a
million army ants is a sophisticated "super-organism." The colony carries out
its legendary raids and can even keep nest temperatures constant to within a
degree. An army ant colony seems en dowed with an intelligence far beyond that
of any individual ant. N.R.Franks speculates thus:

"It seems that intelligence, natural or artificial, is an emergent
property of collective communication. Human con-sciousness itself may be an
epiphenomenon of extraordinary processing power. Although experts prefer to
avoid simplistic definitions of intelligence, it seems clear that all
intelligence involves the rational manipulation of symbolic information. This
is exactly what happens when army ants pass information from individual to
individual through the 'writing' and 'reading' of symbols, often in the form
of chemical messengers or trail pheromones, which act as stimuli for changing
behavior patterns."

An army ant colony scatters about 14 foraging raids During its 20-day
stationary phase, an army ant colony scatters about 14 foraging raids directed
123 degrees apart. The heavy line indicates the colony's path during the
nomadic phase. In the body of his article, Franks describes two remarkable
capabilities of an army ant colony: time-keeping and navigation. The outward
manisfestation of time-keeping is in the precise timing of the colony's
nomadic phase of 15 days (during which larvae are growing) and the 20-day
stationary phase (during which pupae develop). The queen's egg-laying also
conforms with this schedule. Raids into the rain forest occur in both phases.

Perhaps more remarkable is the systematic orientation of the raids in the
stationary phase. These raids are separated by an average 123 degrees, as diagrammed.
This scattering allows time for new prey to enter the previously raided areas.

But how does the colony determine direction in the dense rain forest?
Probably from polarized sinlight, thinks Franks. But here we have a problem:
each army ant, instead of having multi faceted compound eyes like most
insects, has just a single facet in each eye.

"The mystery is how the colony can navigate with each of its workers
having such rudimentary eyesight. In my wildest dreams, I imagine that the
whole swarm behaves like a huge compound eye, with each of the ants in the
swarm front contributing two lenses to a 10- or 20-m wide 'eye' with hundreds
of thousands of facets."

Comment. By analogy, the human body is a colony of individual cells, most
of which are specialized in some way. Individual human cells can be grown
alone, but they are as directionless as the 100 ants on the flat surface.

Adventures Among Ants

Are ants exciting? You bet they are! Entomologist Moffett, who has been
described as the Indiana Jones of entomology, takes the reader along as he
travels the world in search of ants. Ants are found on every continent except
Antarctica and in virtually every climate. They are masters at exploiting an
abundant niche the cracks, crevices, gaps, hollows, and other interstices of
the environment. As a small child Moffett was enraptured by ants, and, after
reading the exploits of the early explorer-naturalists, he wanted to be a
field biologist. Studying ants has led him to India and the marauder ant,
which has workers of three sizes, the largest being 500 times the size of the
smallest the smallest, however, are those that start the hunt. In Nigeria, he
watches army ants on raids, observing how individual prey species fight back.
Weaver ants in Australia, Asia, and Africa use their larvae s ability to spin
silk to bind leaves together to make a nest. In Brunei, the author observed
ants diving into pitcher plants to retrieve drowned insects. California
reveals the slaver Amazon ants, who steal pupae from other ant species to do
all of their work for them. In South America, Moffett digs up colonies of
leaf-cutting ants, who grow their fungus food in gardens based on leaves they
cut.

Waves of mycelial networks intersect and permeate one another. This interspersing is the foundation of soils worldwide. Although the mycelia, under the microscope, are seemingly undifferentiated, their ability to respond to natural disasters and sudden changes in the environment is a testament to their inherent intelligence. I believe mycelia are Earth's natural Internet, the essential wiring of the Gaian consciousness. The recent creation of the computer Internet is merely an extension of a successful biological model

that has evolved on this planet for billions of years. The timing of the computer Internet should not be construed as happenstance. Sharing intelligence may be the only way to save endangered ecosystems. The planet is calling out to us. Will we listen in time? The lessons are around us. Will we learn?

Covering most landmasses on the planet, and indeed floating in the oceans, are huge masses of fine filaments of living cells from Fungi, a kingdom barely explored. More than a mile of these cells, called mycelia, can permeate a cubic inch of soil. Fungal mats are now known as the largest biological entities on the planet, with some individual mats covering more than 20,000 acres. The momentum of mycelial mass from a single mushroom species, growing outwards at one-quarter to two inches per day, staggers the imagination. These silent mycelial tsunamis affect all biological systems upon which they are dependent. As one fungus matures and dies back, a panoply of other fungi quickly comes into play. Every ounce of soil hosts not just one species, but literally thousands of species of fungi. Of the estimated 6,000,000 species in the world, we have catalogued only about 50,000. The genetic diversity of fungi is vast by design, and apparently crucial for life to continue.

Nearly all plants have joined with saprophytic and mycorrhizal fungi in symbiosis. Mycorrhizal fungi surround and penetrate the roots of grasses, shrubs, and trees, expanding the absorption zone ten- to a hundredfold, aiding in plants' quest for water, and increasing the moisture-holding capacity of soils. This close alliance also forestalls blights and is essential for longevity of the forest ecosystem. Throughout the lifespan of a Douglas fir, nearly 200 species of mycorrhizal mushrooms can be joined in this most holy of alliances. The interrelationships of these species with other organisms in the forest are just beginning to be understood. What we do know is that fungal complexity is the common denominator of a healthy forest.

Unfortunately, the loss of nearly 50 percent of the mycorrhizal mushroom species in Europe in recent decades forebodes impending ecological collapse. With the loss of fungi, disease vectors soon plague the forest. The diversity of insects, birds, flowering plants, and all mammals begins to suffer. Humidity drops, now-exposed soils are blown away, and deserts encroach, stressing resources even as human populations artificially expand beyond the carrying capacity of their resident ecosystems.

Mycoremediation

For the past four years I have been working with Battelle Laboratories, a nonprofit foundation whose mission is to use science to improve environmental health. Battelle is a major player in the bioremediation industry, and widely used by the United States and other governments in finding solutions to toxic wastes. The marine science laboratory of Battelle, in Sequim, Washington became interested, as their mandate is to improve the health of the marine ecosystem. Under the stewardship of Dr. Jack Word, we began a series of experiments employing the strains from my mushroom gene library, many of which were secured by collecting specimens while hiking in the old-growth forests of the Olympic and Cascade mountains. We now have applied for a patent utilizing mycelial mats for bioremediation, a process we have termed "mycoremediation."

Mycelia produce extracellular enzymes and acids that break down recalcitrant molecules such as lignin and cellulose, the two primary components of woody plants. Lignin peroxidases dismantle the long chains of hydrogen and carbon, converting wood into simpler forms on the path to decomposition. By circumstance, these and other fungal enzymes are superb at breaking apart hydrocarbons, the base structure common to oils, petroleum products, pesticides, PCBs, and many other pollutants.

After several years of experiments, we have made some astonishing discoveries. (I am continually bemused that humans "discover" what nature has known all along.) The first laboratory and outdoor studies showed that a strain of oyster mushrooms could break down heavy oil, removing over 97 percent of the toxic and recalcitrant polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and more than 80 percent of the alkanes. A pilot-scale project was carried out at a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) maintenance yard in Bellingham. WSDOT and Battelle each funded part of this experiment, in which three bioremediation methods and untreated controls were compared. Each test-and-control mound was about 10' x 10' x 3', or about ten cubic yards of contaminated soil. Two methods were applied by WSDOT and its subcontractor: one employed native bacteria, the other used engineered bacteria, and both required monthly fertilizing and tilling. Our group applied the living mycelia of oyster mushrooms. We inoculated three mounds of soil, each contaminated with a different mixture of diesel fuel, motor oil, gasoline, and other petroleum hydrocarbons.

After four weeks, the tarps were pulled back from each test pile. The first piles, employing the other techniques, were unremarkable. Then the tarp was pulled from our piles, and gasps of astonishment and laughter welled up from the observers. The hydrocarbon-laden pile was bursting with mushrooms! Oyster mushrooms up to twelve inches in diameter had formed across the pile. Based on our earlier tests, we estimated that most of the PAHs and alkanes had been broken down by this time. The mushrooms were tested and shown to be free of any petroleum products.

After eight weeks, the mushrooms had rotted away, and then came another startling revelation. As the mushrooms rotted, flies were attracted. (Sciarid, Phorid, and other "fungus gnats" commonly seek out mushrooms, engorge themselves with spores, and spread the spores to other habitats.) The flies became a magnet for other insects, which in turn brought in birds. Apparently the birds brought in seeds. Soon ours was an oasis, the only pile teeming with life! We think we have found what is called a "keystone" organism, one that facilitates a cascade of other biological processes that contribute to habitat remediation. Critics, who were in favor of using plants (as in "phytoremediation") and/or bacteria, reluctantly became de facto advocates of our process, since the mushrooms opened the door for this natural sequencing.

By the study's end point at twelve weeks, the total petroleum hydrocarbons were reduced by mycoremediation, and the soil had been enriched by the treatment and by the development of a complex community. The soil was tested and shown to be nontoxic and suitable for use in WSDOT's highway landscaping.

Another discovery involves the use of some of my mushroom strains in the destruction of biological- and chemical-warfare agents. Most of the research is currently classified by the Defense Department, but we can tell you, for example, that certain of our proprietary strains have been shown to break down surrogates of sarin and soman, similar to the potent nerve-gas agent Saddam Hussein was accused of loading into missile warheads during the Gulf War. This discovery is significant, because these compounds are very difficult to destroy by any other method. Our fungus did so in a surprisingly effective manner.

Mycofiltration

When I first moved to my property in Kamilche Point, Washington, I installed an outdoor mushroom bed in a gulch leading to a saltwater beach where clams and oysters were being commercially cultivated. An inspection showed that the outflow of water from my property was jeopardizing the quality of my neighbor's shellfish, with the bacteria count close to the legal limit. The following year, after the mushroom mycelia colonized the beds, the coliform count decreased to nearly undetectable levels. Mycelia can serve as unparalleled biological filters. This led to the term I have coined, "mycofiltration": the use of fungal mats as biological filters.

In still another series of experiments with Batelle, one significant discovery involved an old-growth-forest mushroom that produced an army of crystalline entities advancing in front of the growing mycelium. These three-dimensional pyramidal structures appear to attract motile bacteria such as Escherichia coli by the thousands, and to summarily stun them. The advancing mycelium then digests the E. coli, effectively removing them from the environment.

We believe that buffer zones around streams work primarily because of the mycelia resident in the first few inches of soil. Buffers with multi-canopied trees and shrubs combined with grasses (and the debris fall-out they provide) afford a mycologically rich zone, filtering out run-off from adjacent farms, highways, and suburban zones. The mycologically rich riparian zones are cooler, attract insects which lay larvae (grub for fish), and then foster bird life. Once the riparian zones achieve a plateau of complexity, they become self-sustaining. Amazingly, I have not heard a single researcher ever mention the primary role fungi play in riparian buffers, let alone the purposeful introduction of mycelial colonies to protect watersheds. This method is ingeniously simple in its design and yet seemingly out of the grasp of politicians. The prejudice against mushrooms is a form of biological racism mushrooms are just not taken seriously.

Mycofiltration is a natural fit to John Todd's Living Machine use of estuary ecosystems to break down toxic wastes. The marriage of upland use of mushroom mycelia with estuary environments could solve some of the greatest challenges threatening our ecosystems, and truly give meaning to the word "sustainability." We are currently moving toward unifying these two friendly technologies.

What our team has discovered, even given our elementary research, is that the fungal genome has far greater potential in treating a wide variety of environmental and health concerns than we could have conceived. Although we have looked at just a few of the mushroom species resident in the Old Growth, clearly these ancestral strains of mushrooms have survived for millennia due to their inherent ability to adapt. These adaptive mechanisms are the very foundation of ecological stability and vitality in a rapidly changing environment. Mushrooms are "smart" fungi. We should learn from our elders: native peoples worldwide have viewed fungi as spiritual allies. They are not only the guardians of the forest. They are the guardians of our future.

The human body operates, in essence, like a large, multicellular society. Within this tight-knit community, trillions of cells, organized into hundreds of different tissues, collaborate for the good of the whole organism. Some cells convert food into energy, some transport oxygen or nutrients throughout the body, some fight infections, and some shuttle the organism's genes into the next generation.

Individuality is a complex trait, yet a series of stages each advantageous in itself can be shown to exist allowing evolution to get from unicellular individuals to multicellular individuals.

Fitness tradeoffs drive the transition of a cell group into a multicellular individual through the evolution of cells specialized at reproductive and vegetative functions of the group

The selective pressures leading to reproductive altruism stem from the increasing cost of reproduction with increasing group size.

Concepts from population genetics and evolutionary biology appear to be sufficient to explain complexity, at least as it relates to the problem of the major transitions between the different kinds of evolutionary individuals.

Evolutionary biology can explain complexity.

Evolutionary individuals are integrated and indivisible wholes with the property of heritable variation in fitness so that they may evolve adaptations at their level of organization. Being wholes, evolutionary individuals may be thought to be irreducibly complex, but this has not been the case during evolutionary history; a series of stages, each advantageous in itself, may be shown to exist allowing evolution to get from one kind of individual to another. The evolutionary concepts we use to understand evolutionary transitions in individuality involve fitness and its reorganization, fitness tradeoffs (especially the cost of reproduction to survival) and their roles in life-history evolution, and kin selection and altruism and their roles in social evolution.

Evolution occurs not only through the standard processes operating within populations, but also during evolutionary transitions in individuality, when groups of individuals become so integrated that they evolve into new higher-level individuals. Indeed, the major landmarks in the diversification of life and the hierarchical organization of the living world are consequences of a series of evolutionary transitions: from genes to gene networks to the first cell, from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, from cells to multicellular organisms, from asexual to sexual populations, and from solitary to social organisms.

The individuality of multicellular groups is a complex trait. Following Darwin and his approach in The Origin of Species to understanding an organ of such complexity as the human eye, we reduce the complexity to a set of evolutionary steps involving simpler traits, each advantageous by itself. In the case of the evolution of multicellular individuals, these stages might involve the formation of cell groups, the increase of cooperation within cell groups, the evolution of conflict mediators to protect the group against cheaters, the increase in group size, the specialization of cells in essential fitness components of the group, and the spatial organization of these specialized cell types.

There are several hypotheses for the evolution of cell specialization. The first involves the evolution of cooperation (versus defection). To cooperate, cells presumably must specialize at particular behaviors and functions. The evolution of costly forms of cooperation, altruism, is fundamental to evolutionary transitions, because altruism exports fitness from a lower level (the costs of altruism) to a higher level (the benefits of altruism). The evolution of cooperation sets the stage for defection, and this leads to a second kind of hypothesis for the evolution of specialized cells involving conflict mediation. If the opportunities for defectors can be mediated, enhanced cooperativity of cells will result in more harmonious functioning of the group. A variety of features of multicellular organisms can be understood as “conflict mediators,” that is, adaptations to reduce conflict and increase cooperation among cells (6): high kinship as a result of development from a single cell, lowered mutation rate as a result of a nucleus, self-policing of selfish cells by the immune system, parental control of cell phenotype, programmed cell death of cells depending on signals received by neighboring cells, determinate body size, and early germ soma separation. These different kinds of conflict mediators require different specialized cell types. The third hypothesis for specialization involves the advantages of division of labor and the synergism that may result when cells specialize in complementary behaviors and functions. The most basic division of labor in organisms is between reproductive and vegetative or survival-enhancing functions.

Evolutionary individuals must have heritable variation in fitness-related traits. The fitness of any evolutionary unit can be understood in terms of its two basic components: fecundity (reproduction) and viability (survival). As embodied in current theory, tradeoffs between fitness components drive the evolution of diverse life-history traits in extant organisms

How do groups become individuals? Our hypothesis is that fitness tradeoffs drive the transition of a cell group into a multicellular individual through the evolution of cells specialized at reproductive and vegetative functions of the group.

Altruism refers to a behavior or interaction that benefits other individuals at a cost to the individual exhibiting the behavior. Altruism is widely appreciated to be the central problem of social evolution. It is also central to the reorganization of fitness during evolutionary transitions, as already mentioned, because altruism trades fitness from the lower level, the costs of altruism, to the higher level, the benefits of altruism.

There is a selective benefit for forming groups and for increasing group size.

As colonies increase in size, the costs of reproduction increase and the curvature of the tradeoff between reproduction and viability goes from concave to convex. This convexity of the tradeoff curve selects for specialization in reproductive and vegetative viability-enhancing functions (germ soma specialization). As cells specialize in these essential fitness components, the fitness of the cells declines while the fitness of the group increases. As a result of the specialization of the cells, fitness is transferred from the cell to group level and the group becomes indivisible and an individual.

In this way, using the concepts of fitness, fitness reorganization, fitness tradeoffs, altruism, kin selection, life history evolution, and social evolution, we can explain a major evolutionary transition in individuality: the evolution of complex multicellular individuals from unicellular and colonial ancestors.

Multicellular organisms are organisms that consist of more than one cell, in
contrast to single-cell organisms. Most life that can be seen with the naked
eye is multicellular, as are all animals (except for specialized organisms
such as Myxozoa) and land plants.

Multicellularity has evolved independently dozens of times in the history of
Earth, for example in plants and animals. Multicellularity exists in both
prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and first appeared several billion years ago in
cyanobacteria. In order to reproduce, true multicellular organisms must solve
the problem of regenerating a whole organism from germ cells (i.e. sperm and
egg cells), an issue that is studied in developmental biology. Therefore, the
development of sexual reproduction in unicellular organisms during the
Mesoproterozoic is thought to have precipitated the development and rise of
multicellular life.

Multicellular organisms, especially long-living animals, also face the
challenge of cancer, which occurs when cells fail to regulate their growth
within the normal program of development. Changes in tissue morphology can be
observed during this process.

Here are various mechanisms by which multicellularity could have evolved:

One hypothesis is that a group of function-specific cells aggregated into a
slug-like mass called a grex, which moved as a multicellular unit. This is
essentially what slime molds do. Another hypothesis is that a primitive cell
underwent nucleus division, thereby becoming a syncytium. A membrane would
then form around each nucleus (and the cellular space and organelles occupied
in the space), thereby resulting in a group of connected cells in one organism
(this mechanism is observable in Drosophila). A third hypothesis is that, as a
unicellular organism divided, the daughter cells failed to separate, resulting
in a conglomeration of identical cells in one organism, which could later
develop specialized tissues. This is what animal and plant embryos do and also
what colonial choanoflagellates apparently do.

Because the first multicellular organisms were simple, soft organisms lacking
bone, shell or other hard body parts, they are not well preserved in the
fossil record. One exception may be the demosponge, which may have left a
chemical signature in ancient rocks. The earliest fossils of multicellular
organisms include the contested Grypania spiralis and the fossils of the black
shales of the Palaeoproterozoic Francevillian Group Fossil B Formation in
Gabon.

Until recently phylogenetic reconstruction has been through anatomical
(particularly embryological) similarities. This is inexact, as living
multicellular organisms such as animals and plants are more than 500 million
years removed from their single-cell ancestors. Such a passage of time allows
both divergent and convergent evolution time to mimic similarities and
accumulate differences between groups of modern and extinct ancestral species.
Modern phylogenetics uses sophisticated techniques such as alloenzymes,
satellite DNA and other molecular markers to describe traits that are shared
between distantly related lineages.

The evolution of multicellularity could have occurred in three ways, and of
which the latter, the colonial theory, is most credited by the scientific
community:

The Symbiotic Theory

This theory suggests that the first multicellular organisms occurred from
symbiosis (cooperation) of different species of single-cell organisms, each
with different roles. Over time these organisms would become so dependent on
each other they would not be able to survive independently, eventually leading
to the incorporation into one multicellular organism of their genome. Each
respective organism would become a separate lineage of differentiated cells
within the newly created species.

This kind of severely co-dependent symbiosis can be seen frequently, such as
in the relationship between clown fish and Riterri sea anemones. In these
cases, it is extremely doubtful whether either species would survive very long
if the other became extinct. However, the problem with this theory is that it
is still not known how each organism's DNA could be incorporated into one
single genome to constitute them as a single species. Although such symbiosis
is theorized to have occurred (e.g., mitochondria and chloroplasts in animal
and plant cells - endosymbiosis), it has happened only extremely rarely and,
even then, the genomes of the endosymbionts have retained an element of
distinction, separately replicating their DNA during mitosis of the host
species. For instance, the two or three symbiotic organisms forming the
composite lichen, while dependent on each other for survival, have to
separately reproduce and then re-form to create one individual organism once
more.

The Cellularization (Syncytial) Theory

This theory states that a single unicellular organism could have developed
internal membrane partitions around each of its nuclei. Many protists such
as the ciliates or slime moulds can have several nuclei, lending support to
this hypothesis. However, simple presence of multiple nuclei is not enough to
support the theory. Multiple nuclei of ciliates are dissimilar and have clear
differentiated functions: The macronucleus serves the organism's needs, while
the micronucleus is used for sexual-like reproduction with exchange of genetic
material. Slime molds syncitia form from individual amoeboid cells, like
syncitial tissues of some multicellular organisms, not the other way round. To
be deemed valid, this theory needs a demonstrable example and mechanism of
generation of a multicellular organism from a pre-existing syncytium.

The Colonial Theory

The third explanation of multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory proposed
by Haeckel in 1874. This theory claims that the symbiosis of many organisms of
the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which suggests the symbiosis of
different species) led to a multicellular organism. At least some, it is
presumed land-evolved, multicellularity occurs by cells separating and then
rejoining (e.g., cellular slime molds) whereas for the majority of
multicellular types (those that evolved within aquatic environments),
multicellularity occurs as a consequence of cells failing to separate
following division. The mechanism of this latter colony formation can be as
simple as incomplete cytokinesis, though multicellularity is also typically
considered to involve cellular differentiation.

The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been seen to
occur independently numerous times (in 16 different protoctistan phyla). For
instance, during food shortages the amoeba Dictyostelium groups together in a
colony that moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then slightly
differentiate from each other. Other examples of colonial organisation in
protista are Volvocaceae, such as Eudorina and Volvox (the latter of which
consists of up to 500 - 50,000 cells (depending on the species), only a
fraction of which reproduce. (in one species 25 - 35, 8 asexually and around
15 - 25 sexually). However, it can often be hard to separate colonial protists
from true multicellular organisms, as the two concepts are not distinct
(although the former has been dubbed pluricellular and the latter
multicellular). This problem plagues most hypotheses of how
multicellularisation could have occurred.

Advantages of Multicellularity

* Allows an organism to grow larger than would be otherwise possible, and as a consequence enjoy all the competitive benefits of an increase in size, beyond the limits normally imposed by diffusion.

Quoting Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist
Association.

"Humankind frees itself from the shackles of ignorance through the acquisition
of knowledge, but secular humanist and devoutly religious communities don't
agree about where that knowledge is found. To humanists, observation,
experience, and analysis of the physical world are the keys to understanding
reality, while religious communities see this scientific knowledge as less
important than their chosen scripture and revelations. This key difference in
the approach toward knowledge informs both groups' feelings about
intellectualism and the world itself.

The commitment to ancient and divinely revealed truth leads many religious
people to oppose intellectualism, mainly because scientific thinking reveals a
continuously changing catalog of knowledge in which previous information is
either improved upon or discarded altogether. For those who emphasize the
importance of God-given truth, such abandonment or modification of ideas is
unacceptable, as it would suggest that their heavenly truths weren't so divine
after all.

The problem with the anti-intellectualism shown by the religious community is
that it prevents us from addressing suffering that could be alleviated through
scientific progress and government intervention. Unfortunately, many of those
who believe in divine truth or a divine plan reject attempts by human beings
to control their own future, which limits our ability to combat harmful
aspects of society and government."

Unitarian Universalism is a religion characterized by support for a "free and
responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists do not
share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual
growth and by the understanding that an individual's theology is a result of
that search and not obedience to an authoritarian requirement. Unitarian
Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range
of beliefs and practices.

Historically, both Unitarianism and Universalism have roots in the Christian
faith. Contemporary Unitarian Universalists espouse a pluralist approach to
religion, whereby the followers may be atheist, theist, or any point in
between.

Principles and Purposes of the Unitarian Universalist Association:

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association,
covenant to affirm and promote

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The official statement of Unitarian Universalist principles describes the
"sources" upon which current practice is based:

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;

Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;

Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

We do not, however, hold the Bible – or any other account of human experience
– to be either an infallible guide or the exclusive source of truth. Much
biblical material is mythical or legendary. Not that it should be discarded
for that reason! Rather, it should be treasured for what it is. We believe
that we should read the Bible as we read other books – with imagination and a
critical eye. We also respect the sacred literature of other religions.
Contemporary works of science, art, and social commentary are valued as well.
We hold, in the words of an old liberal formulation, that "revelation is not
sealed." Unitarian Universalists aspire to truth as wide as the world – we
look to find truth anywhere, universally.

Most Unitarian Universalists believe that nobody has a monopoly on all truth,
or ultimate proof of the truth of everything in any one belief. Therefore,
one's own truth is unprovable, as is that of others. Consequently, we should
respect the beliefs of others, as well as their right to hold those beliefs.
Conversely, we expect that others should respect our right to our own beliefs.
Several UU's then, would likely hold as many different beliefs. Other beliefs
they may hold in common are a respect for others, for nature, and for common
decency, leading to a particular caring for the poor, the weak and the
downtrodden. As a result, issues of justice, including social justice are held
in common among most.

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are
identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or
creator god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek
(theos) meaning "God". As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best
seen as a process of relating to the Universe. Although there are divergences
within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the
Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

Zen emphasizes experiential wisdom in the attainment of enlightenment. As
such, it de-emphasizes theoretical knowledge in favor of direct self-
realization through meditation and dharma practice.

Zen asserts, as do other schools in Mah?y?na Buddhism, that all sentient
beings have Buddha-nature (Skt. Buddhadh?tu, Tath?gatagarbha), the universal
nature of transcendent wisdom (Skt. prajñ?), and emphasizes that Buddha-nature
is nothing other than the essential nature of the mind itself. The aim of Zen
practice is to discover this Buddha-nature within each person, through
meditation and practice of the Buddha's teachings. The ultimate goal of this
is to become a Completely Enlightened Buddha (Skt. Samyak­sa?buddha).

Existentialist thinkers focus on the question of concrete human existence and
the conditions of this existence rather than hypothesizing a human essence,
stressing that the human essence is determined through life choices. However,
even though the concrete individual existence must have priority in
existentialism, certain conditions are commonly held to be "endemic" to human
existence.

What these conditions are is better understood in light of the meaning of the
word "existence," which comes from the Latin "existere," meaning "to stand
out" (according to the OED, "existere" translates as "come into being"; the
other definition presented here allows for a slanted view and false
implications as seen in the following passage.) Man exists in a state of
distance from the world that he nonetheless remains in the midst of. This
distance is what enables man to project meaning into the disinterested world
of in-itselfs. This projected meaning remains fragile, constantly facing
breakdown for any reason — from a tragedy to a particularly insightful moment.
In such a breakdown, man is put face to face with the naked meaninglessness of
the world, and the results can be devastating.

It is in relation to the concept of the devastating awareness of
meaninglessness that Albert Camus claimed that "there is only one truly
serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide" in his The Myth of
Sisyphus. Although "prescriptions" against the possibly deleterious
consequences of these kinds of encounters vary, from Kierkegaard's religious
"stage" to Camus' insistence on persevering in spite of absurdity, the concern
with helping people avoid living their lives in ways that put them in the
perpetual danger of having everything meaningful break down is common to most
existentialist philosophers. The possibility of having everything meaningful
break down poses a threat of quietism, which is inherently against the
existentialist philosophy. It has been said that the possibility of
suicide makes all humans existentialists.

A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence,
which means that the actual life of the individual is what constitutes what
could be called his or her "essence" instead of there being a predetermined
essence that defines what it is to be a human. Thus, the human being – through
their own consciousness – creates their own values and determines a meaning to
their life. Although it was Sartre who explicitly coined the phrase, similar
notions can be found in the thought of many existentialist philosophers, from
Mulla Sadra, to Kierkegaard, to Heidegger.

It is often claimed in this context that a person defines him or herself,
which is often perceived as stating that they can "wish" to be something —
anything, a bird, for instance — and then be it. According to most
existentialist philosophers, however, this would constitute an inauthentic
existence. Instead, the phrase should be taken to say that the person is (1)
defined only insofar as he or she acts and (2) that he or she is responsible
for his or her actions. For example, someone who acts cruelly towards other
people is, by that act, defined as a cruel person. Furthermore, by this action
of cruelty such persons are themselves responsible for their new identity (a
cruel person). This is as opposed to their genes, or 'human nature', bearing
the blame.

As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all
exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself
afterwards." Of course, the more positive, therapeutic aspect of this is also
implied: A person can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good
person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can
choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things
essentially.

Political philosophy is the study of such topics as liberty, justice,
property, rights, law, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what
they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government
legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it
should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a
legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if
ever. In a vernacular sense, the term "political philosophy" often refers to a
general view, or specific ethic, political belief or attitude, about politics
that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy

Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored liberal positions (the term
"liberal" in this sense describes social liberalism, not classical
liberalism). In recent exit polls, the Democratic Party has had broad appeal
across all socio-ethno-economic demographics. Historically, the party has
favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities;
it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive
income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism)
was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began
advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The party had a
pro-business wing, typified by Al Smith, and a Southern conservative wing that
shrank after President Lyndon B. Johnson supported the Civil Rights Act of
1964. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in
the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown
since the 1960s. Since the 1970s, environmentalism has been a major new
component.

In recent decades, the party has adopted a centrist economic and socially
progressive agenda, with the voter base having shifted considerably. Today,
Democrats advocate more social freedoms, affirmative action, balanced budget,
and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (mixed
economy). The economic policy adopted by the modern Democratic Party,
including the former Clinton administration, has been referred to as the
"Third Way". The party believes that government should play a role in
alleviating poverty and social injustice and use a system of progressive
taxation.

Social liberals (modern liberals) and progressives constitute roughly half of
the Democratic voter base. Liberals thereby form the largest united
typological demographic within the Democratic base. According to the 2008 exit
poll results, liberals constituted 22% of the electorate, and 89% of American
liberals favored the candidate of the Democratic Party. White-collar college-
educated professionals were mostly Republican until the 1950s; they now
compose perhaps the most vital component of the Democratic Party. A large
majority of liberals favor universal health care, with many supporting a
single-payer system. A majority also favor diplomacy over military action,
stem cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government,
stricter gun control, and environmental protection laws as well as the
preservation of abortion rights. Immigration and cultural diversity is deemed
positive; liberals favor cultural pluralism, a system in which immigrants
retain their native culture in addition to adopting their new culture. They
tend to be divided on free trade agreements and organizations such as the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Most liberals oppose increased
military spending and the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

This ideological group differs from the traditional organized labor base.
According to the Pew Research Center, a plurality of 41% resided in mass
affluent households and 49% were college graduates, the highest figure of any
typographical group. It was also the fastest growing typological group between
the late 1990s and early 2000s. Liberals include most of academia and
large portions of the professional class.

Though centrist Democrats differ on a variety of issues, they typically foster
a mix of political views and ideas. Compared to other Democratic factions,
they tend to be supportive of the use of military force, including the war in
Iraq, and are more willing to reduce government welfare, as indicated by their
support for welfare reform and tax cuts. One of the most influential factions
is the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a nonprofit organization that
advocates centrist positions for the party. The DLC hails President Bill
Clinton as proof of the viability of "Third Way" politicians and a DLC success
story. Centrist Democrats form the New Democrat Coalition in the House of
Representatives and Senate.

The Republican Party includes fiscal conservatives, social conservatives,
neoconservatives, moderates, and libertarians. Prior to the formation of the
conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican
party ideologies in the mid-1960s, the party historically advocated classical
liberalism, paleoconservatism, and progressivism.

Economic policies

Republicans emphasize the role of free markets and individual achievement as
the primary factors behind economic prosperity. To this end, they favor
laissez-faire economics, fiscal conservatism, and the promotion of personal
responsibility over welfare programs.

A leading economic theory advocated by modern Republicans is supply-side
economics. Some fiscal policies influenced by this theory were popularly known
as Reaganomics, a term popularized during the Presidential administrations of
Ronald Reagan. This theory holds that reduced income tax rates increase GDP
growth and thereby generate the same or more revenue for the government from
the smaller tax on the extra growth. This belief is reflected, in part, by the
party's long-term advocacy of tax cuts. Many Republicans consider the income
tax system to be inherently inefficient and oppose graduated tax rates, which
they believe are unfairly targeted at those who create jobs and wealth. They
believe private spending is usually more efficient than government spending.
Republicans oppose the estate tax.

Most Republicans agree there should be a "safety net" to assist the less
fortunate; however, they tend to believe the private sector is more effective
in helping the poor than government is; as a result, Republicans support
giving government grants to faith-based and other private charitable
organizations to supplant welfare spending. Members of the GOP also believe
that limits on eligibility and benefits must be in place to ensure the safety
net is not abused. Republicans introduced and strongly supported the welfare
reform of 1996, which was signed into law by Democratic President Clinton, and
which limited eligibility for welfare, successfully leading to many former
welfare recipients finding jobs.

The party opposes a government-run single-payer health care system, believing
such a system constitutes socialized medicine and is in favor of a personal or
employer-based system of insurance, supplemented by Medicare for the elderly
and Medicaid, which covers approximately 40% of the poor. The GOP has a
mixed record of supporting the historically popular Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid programs. Congressional Republicans and the Bush administration
supported a reduction in Medicaid's growth rate; however, congressional
Republicans expanded Medicare, supporting a new drug plan for seniors starting
in 2006. In 2011, House Republicans overwhelmingly voted for a proposal named
The Path to Prosperity and for major changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and the
2010 Health Care Legislation. Many Republicans support increased health
insurance portability, laws promoting coverage of pre-existing medical
conditions, a cap on malpractice lawsuits, the implementation of a streamlined
electronic medical records system, an emphasis on preventative care rather
than emergency room care, and tax benefits aimed at making health insurance
more affordable for the uninsured and targeted to promote universal access.
They generally oppose government funding for elective abortions.

Republicans are generally opposed by labor union management and members, and
have supported various legislation on the state and federal levels, including
right to work legislation and the Taft-Hartley Act, which gives workers the
right not to participate in unions, as opposed to a closed shop, which
prohibits workers from choosing not to join unions in workplaces. Some
Republicans are opposed to increases in the minimum wage, believing that such
increases hurt many businesses by forcing them to cut jobs and services,
export jobs overseas, and raise the prices of goods to compensate for the
decrease in profit.

Separation of powers and balance of powers

United States Bill of Rights

Many contemporary Republicans voice support of strict constructionism, the
judicial philosophy that the Constitution should be interpreted narrowly and
as close to the original intent as is practicable rather than a more flexible
"living Constitution" model. Most Republicans point to Roe v. Wade as a
case of judicial activism, where the court overturned most laws restricting
abortion on the basis of a right to privacy inferred from the Bill of Rights
and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Some
Republicans have actively sought to block judges whom they see as being
activist judges and have sought the appointment of judges who claim to
practice judicial restraint. Other Republicans, though, argue that it is the
right of judges to extend the interpretation of the Constitution and judge
actions by the legislative or executive branches as legal or unconstitutional
on previously unarticulated grounds. The issue of judicial deference to the
legislature is a matter of some debate — like the Democrats, most Republicans
criticize court decisions that overturn their own (conservative) legislation
as overstepping bounds and support decisions that overturn opposing
legislation. Some commentators have advocated that the Republicans take a more
aggressive approach and support legislative supremacy more firmly.

The Republican Party has supported various bills within the last decade to
strip some or all federal courts of the ability to hear certain types of
cases, in an attempt to limit judicial review. These jurisdiction stripping
laws have included removing federal review of the recognition of same-sex
marriage with the Marriage Protection Act, the constitutionality of the Pledge
of Allegiance with the Pledge Protection Act, and the rights of detainees in
Guantanamo Bay in the Detainee Treatment Act. The Supreme Court overruled the
last of these limitations in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Compared with Democrats, many Republicans believe in a more robust version of
federalism with greater limitations placed upon federal power and a larger
role reserved for the States. Following this view on federalism, Republicans
often take a less expansive reading of congressional power under the Commerce
Clause, such as in the opinion of William Rehnquist in United States v. Lopez.
Many Republicans on the more libertarian wing wish for a more dramatic
narrowing of Commerce Clause power by revisiting, among other cases, Wickard
v. Filburn, a case that held that growing wheat on a farm for consumption on
the same farm fell under congressional power to "regulate commerce ... among
the several States".

President George W. Bush was a proponent of the unitary executive theory and
cited it within his signing statements about legislation passed by Congress.
The administration's interpretation of the unitary executive theory was called
seriously into question by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where the Supreme Court ruled
5-3 that the President does not have sweeping powers to override or ignore
laws through his power as commander in chief, stating "the Executive is bound
to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails". Following the ruling, the Bush
administration sought Congressional authorization for programs started only on
executive mandate, as was the case with the Military Commissions Act, or
abandoned programs it had previously asserted executive authority to enact, in
the case of the National Security Agency domestic wiretapping program.

Environmental policies

The Republican Party has long supported the protection of the environment. For
example, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt was a prominent
conservationist whose policies eventually led to the creation of the modern
National Park Service. Republican President Richard Nixon was responsible for
establishing the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. More recently,
California Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, with the support of 16
other states, sued the Federal Government and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency for the right to set vehicle emission standards higher than
the Federal Standard, a right to which California is entitled under the Clean
Air Act.

This association however has shifted as the Democratic Party came to also
support environmentalism. For example, Democratic President Bill Clinton did
not send the Kyoto Protocol to the U.S. Senate for ratification, as he thought
it unfair to the United States. President George W. Bush also publicly opposed
ratification of the Kyoto Protocols on the grounds that they unfairly targeted
Western industrialized nations such as the United States while favoring
developing Global South polluters such as China and India.

In 2000, the Republican Party adopted as part of its platform support for the
development of market-based solutions to environmental problems. According to
the platform, "economic prosperity and environmental protection must advance
together, environmental regulations should be based on science, the
government’s role should be to provide market-based incentives to develop the
technologies to meet environmental standards, we should ensure that
environmental policy meets the needs of localities, and environmental policy
should focus on achieving results processes."

The Bush administration, along with several of the candidates that sought the
Republican Presidential nomination in 2008, supported increased Federal
investment into the development of clean alternative fuels, increased nuclear
power, and well as fuels such as ethanol, as a way of helping the U.S. achieve
energy independence, as opposed to supporting less use of carbon dioxide-
producing methods of generating energy. John McCain supported the cap-and-
trade policy, a policy that is quite popular among Democrats but much less so
among other Republicans. Some Republicans support increased oil drilling in
currently protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a
position that has drawn sharp criticism from some activists.

Social policies

Social services

Some Republicans favor faith-based initiatives. There are some exceptions,
especially in the Northeast and Pacific Coast states.

Race

They are generally against affirmative action for women and some minorities
often describing it as a quota system, believing that it is not meritocratic
and that is counter-productive socially by only further promoting
discrimination. Many Republicans support race-neutral admissions policies in
universities but support taking into account the socioeconomic status of the
student.

Capital punishment

Most of the GOP's membership favors capital punishment and stricter
punishments as a means to prevent crime.

Gun rights

Republicans generally support gun ownership rights and oppose laws regulating
guns, although some Republicans in urban areas sometimes favor limited
restrictions on the grounds that they are necessary to protect safety in large
cities.

Education

Most Republicans support school choice through charter schools and school
vouchers for private schools; many have denounced the performance of the
public school system and the teachers' unions. The party has insisted on a
system of greater accountability for public schools, most prominently in
recent years with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Many Republicans,
however, opposed the creation of the United States Department of Education
when it was initially created in 1979.

Some in the religious wing of the party support voluntary organized prayer in
public schools and the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

Abortion and related issues

A majority of the GOP's national and state candidates are pro-life and oppose
elective abortion on religious or moral grounds.

Although the GOP has voted for increases in government funding of scientific
research, some members actively oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem
cell research beyond the original lines because it involves the destruction of
human embryos (which many consider ethically equivalent to abortion), while
arguing for applying research money into adult stem cell or amniotic stem cell
research. The stem cell issue garnered two once-rare vetoes on research
funding bills from President Bush, who said the research "crossed a moral
boundary".

Marriage

The 2004 Republican platform expressed support for the Federal Marriage
Amendment to the United States Constitution to define marriage as exclusively
between one man and one woman. Generally speaking, most Republicans have
opposed government recognition of same-sex unions such as with same-sex
marriage. This opposition formed a key method of energizing conservative
voters, the Republican base, in the 2004 election. A New York Times and CBS
News collaborative poll released in April 2009 reported that 18% of
Republicans favored recognition of same-sex marriage. An August 2010 Fox poll
found 19% support. Historically, most Republicans have opposed LGBT people
serving openly in the military and supported the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
policy. However, majorities of 52% and 58% among Republicans in both 2004 and
2009 opposed the policy and supported open enlistment, according to Gallup
polling.

Groups pushing for LGBT issues inside the party include Log Cabin Republicans
and GOProud. Fox News national exit polls of self-described LGBT voters found
that 24% voted Republican in 2004 and in 2006. That value was 19% and 31% in
2008 and 2010, respectively. In 2011, 28 % of Republicans supported gay
marriage.

National defense and military spending

Although the Republican Party has always advocated a strong national defense,
historically they disapproved of interventionist foreign policy actions.
Republicans opposed Woodrow Wilson's intervention in World War I and his
subsequent attempt to create the League of Nations. They were also staunchly
opposed to intervention in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor.

Ronald Reagan

Grenada

On October 25, 1983, at the request of the regional governments, Reagan
ordered Operation Urgent Fury, a military invasion of the small, Caribbean
island of Grenada, where over a thousand American students and their families
were in residence. A Marxist coup d'état had overthrown the established
government and shot its leader Maurice Bishop. The is was the first actual
roll-back that destroyed a Communist regime and marked the continued
escalation of tensions with the Soviet Union known as the "second cold war".
Democrats had been highly critical of Reagan's anti-Communism in Latin
America, but this time Reagan had strong support from the voters and leading
Democrats said the invasion was justified. It built the President's image
of decisive strong action a year before the 2004 election, when Mondale said
he too would have ordered the invasion. Indeed Mondale attacked Senator Gary
Hart, his chief opponent for the Democratic nomination, as isolationist and
weak on fighting dictatorships.

Cold War

Reagan escalated the Cold War, accelerating a reversal from the policy of
détente which began in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter following the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan then ordered a massive buildup of the
United States Armed Forces.

Covert operations

Under a policy that came to be known as the Reagan Doctrine, Reagan and his
administration also provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist resistance
movements in an effort to "rollback" Soviet-backed communist governments in
Africa, Asia and Latin America. The policy was politically controversial, with
liberal Democrats especially angry with Reagan's operations in Latin
America. Covert operations elsewhere, especially in Afghanistan against
the Soviets, however, usually won bipartisan support.

George H. W. Bush

Gulf War 1990-91

On August 1, 1990, Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait. President Bush
formed an international coalition and secured UN approval to expel Iraq. On
January 12, 1991, Congress voted approval for a military attack, Operation
Desert Storm, by a narrow margin, with Republicans in favor and Democrats
opposed. The vote in the House was 250 to 183, and in the Senate 52 to 47. In
the Senate 42 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted yes to war, while 45
Democrats and two Republicans voted no. In the House 164 Republicans and 86
Democrats voted yes, and 179 Democrats, three Republicans and one Independent
voted no. The war was short and successful, but Hussein was allowed to remain
in power. Arab countries repaid all the American military costs.

In the 1990s, Republicans opposed the intervention of the United States in the
Balkans under President Bill Clinton and in 2000, George W. Bush ran on a
platform that opposed these types of involvement in foreign conflicts.

George W. Bush

Invasion of Afghanistan

After the September 11 attacks in 2001 in New York, Bush launched the War on
Terrorism, in which the United States led an international coalition invaded
Afghanistan, the base of terrorist Osama bin Laden. This invasion led to the
toppling of the Taliban regime. The U.S killed bin Laden in 2011. There was
bipartisan support. Indeed Obama had criticized Bush in the 2008 campaign for
not being aggressive enough in Afghanistan.

Invasion of Iraq

In 2003, George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, in conjunction with
coalition partners, most notably Great Britain. The invasion was described by
Bush as being part of the War on Terrorism. Saddam Hussein was captured and
executed, but his supporters staged an insurgency that dragged on for years.
It was a major election issue in 2004 (when Bush was reelected) and in 2006
and 2008 (when the Democrats won).

Policies

As a result, some in the Republican Party support unilateralism on issues of
national security, believing in the ability and right of the United States to
act without external support in matters of its national defense. In general,
Republican thinking on defense and international relations is heavily
influenced by the theories of neorealism and realism, characterizing conflicts
between nations as struggles between faceless forces of international
structure, as opposed to being the result of the ideas and actions of
individual leaders. The realist school's influence shows in Reagan's Evil
Empire stance on the Soviet Union and George W. Bush's Axis of evil.

Republicans secured gains in the 2002 and 2004 elections, with the War on
Terror being one of the top issues favoring them. Since the September 11, 2001
attacks, some in the party support neoconservative policies with regard to the
War on Terror, including the 2001 war in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of
Iraq.

The doctrine of preemptive war, wars to disarm and destroy potential military
foes based on speculation of future attacks rather than in defense against
actual attack, has been advocated by prominent members of the Bush
administration, but the war within Iraq has undercut the influence of this
doctrine within the Republican Party. Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York at the
time of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and a candidate for the Republican
presidential nomination in 2008, has stated his support for that policy,
saying America must keep itself "on the offensive" against terrorists.

The George W. Bush administration took the position that the Geneva
Conventions do not apply to unlawful combatants, saying they apply to soldiers
serving in the armies of nation states and not terrorist organizations such as
Al-Qaeda. The Supreme Court overruled this position in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,
which held that the Geneva Conventions were legally binding and must be
followed in regards to all enemy combatants. Prominent Republicans such as
John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul strongly oppose the use of enhanced
interrogation techniques, which they view as torture.

Other international policies

Israel

The Republican leadership supports a strong Israel, but supports efforts to
secure peace in the Middle East between Israel and its Islamic neighbors.

Trade

The party, through former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, has advocated reforms
in the United Nations to halt corruption such as that which afflicted the Oil-
for-Food Program. Most Republicans oppose the Kyoto Protocol. The party
promotes free trade agreements, most notably North American Free Trade
Agreement, Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement and now
an effort to go further south to Brazil, Peru and Colombia, although some have
a protectionist view of trade.

Immigration

Republicans are divided on how to confront illegal immigration between a
platform that allows for migrant workers and easing citizenship guidelines,
and border enforcement-first approach. In general, pro-growth advocates within
the Republican Party support more immigration, and traditional or populist
conservatives oppose it. In 2006, the White House supported and Republican-led
Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform that would eventually allow
millions of illegal immigrants to become citizens, but the House, also led by
Republicans, took an enforcement-first approach, and the bill failed to pass
the conference committee.

Political status of Puerto Rico

The Republican Party has expressed its support for the U.S. citizens of Puerto
Rico to exercise their right to determine a future permanent non-territorial
political status with government by consent, full enfranchisement and to be
admitted to the union as a fully sovereign U.S. state. Puerto Rico has been
under U.S. sovereignty for over a century and Puerto Ricans have been U.S.
citizens since 1917; but the island’s ultimate status still has not been
determined and its 3.9 million residents still do not have voting
representation in their national government. The following is the appropriate
section from the 2008 party platform (unchanged from the 2004 and 2000
platforms).

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be
admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so
determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the
constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-
territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As
long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding
their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of
referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.

Voter base

As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as
Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents.

Business community.

The GOP is usually seen as the traditionally pro-business party and it garners
major support from a wide variety of industries from the financial sector to
small businesses. Republicans are about 50 percent more likely to be self-
employed, and are more likely to work in the area of management.

Gender.

Since 1980, a "gender gap" has seen slightly stronger support for the GOP
among men than among women. In the 2006 House races, 43% of women voted for
GOP, while 47% of men did so. In the 2010 midterms, the "gender gap" was
reduced with women supporting GOP and Democratic candidates equally 49% to
49%.

Race.

While historically the party had been supporters of rights for blacks since
the 1860s, it lost its leadership position; the GOP has been winning under 15%
of the black vote in recent national elections (1980 to 2008). The party has
recently nominated African American candidates for senator or governor in
Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, though none were successful. In the
2010 elections, two African American Republicans were elected to the U.S.
House of Representatives. The Republican Party abolished slavery under
Abraham Lincoln, defeated the Slave Power, and gave blacks the vote during
Reconstruction in the late 1860s. Until the New Deal of the 1930s, blacks
supported the GOP by large margins. Most black voters switched to the
Democratic Party in the 1930s when the New Deal offered them employment
opportunities, and major figures, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, began to support
civil rights. They became one of the core components of the New Deal
Coalition. In the South, blacks were able to vote in large numbers after 1965,
when a bipartisan coalition passed the Voting Rights Act, and ever since have
formed a significant portion (20-50%) of the Democratic vote in that
region.

In recent decades, the party has been moderately successful in gaining support
from Hispanic and Asian American voters. George W. Bush, who campaigned
energetically for Hispanic votes, received 35% of their vote in 2000 and 44%
in 2004. The party's strong anti-communist stance has made it popular among
some minority groups from current and former Communist states, in particular
Cuban Americans, Korean Americans, Chinese Americans, and Vietnamese
Americans. The election of Bobby Jindal as Governor of Louisiana has been
hailed as pathbreaking. He is the first elected minority governor in Louisiana
and the first state governor of Indian descent. In the 2008 presidential
election, John McCain won 55% of white votes, and 31% of Hispanic votes,
compared to just 4% of African American votes. In the 2010 House election, the
GOP won 60% of the white votes, 38% of Hispanic votes, while winning only 9%
of the African American vote.

For decades, a greater percentage of white voters identified themselves as
Democrats, rather than Republicans. However, since the mid-1990s whites have
been more likely to self-identify as Republicans than Democrats.

Family status

In recent elections, Republicans have found their greatest support among
whites from married couples with children living at home. Unmarried and
divorced women were far more likely to vote for Kerry in 2004.

Income

Low-income voters tend to favor the Democratic Party while high-income voters
tend to support the Republican Party. President George W. Bush won 41% of the
poorest 20% of voters in 2004, 55% of the richest twenty percent, and 53% of
those in between. In the 2006 House races, the voters with incomes over
$50,000 were 49% Republican, while those under were 38%.

Military.

Republicans hold a large majority in the armed services, with 57% of active
military personnel and 66% of officers identified as Republican in 2003.

Education.

Self-identified Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to
have 4-year college degrees. Regarding graduate-level degrees (masters or
doctorate), there is a rough parity between Democrats and Republicans.
According to the Gallup Organization: "Both Democrats and Republicans have
equal numbers of Americans at the upper end of the educational spectrum - that
is, with post graduate degrees..." Fried provides a slightly more detailed
analysis, noting that Republican men are more likely than Democratic men to
have advanced degrees, but Democratic women are now more likely than
Republican women to have advanced degrees.

Republicans remain a small minority of college professors, with 11% of full-
time faculty identifying as Republican.

Age.

The Democrats do better among younger Americans and Republicans among older
Americans. In 2006, the GOP won 38% of the voters aged 18 to 29.

Sexual Orientation.

Exit polls conducted in 2000, 2004 and 2006 indicate that about one quarter of
gay and lesbian Americans voted for the GOP. In recent years, many in the
party have opposed same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, inclusion
of sexual orientation in federal hate crimes laws, the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act, while supporting the use of the don't ask, don't tell
policy within the military. Some members of the party, particularly in the
Northeast and Pacific coast, support civil unions and adoption rights for
same-sex couples. The opposition to gay rights largely comes from the
socially conservative wing of the party.

Religion.

Religion has always played a major role for both parties but, in the course of
a century, the parties' religious compositions have changed. Religion was a
major dividing line between the parties before 1960, with Catholics, Jews, and
Southern Protestants heavily Democratic, and Northeastern Protestants heavily
Republican. Most of the old differences faded away after the realignment of
the 1970s and 80s that undercut the New Deal coalition. Voters who attend
church weekly gave 61% of their votes to Bush in 2004; those who attend
occasionally gave him only 47%, while those who never attend gave him 36%.
Fifty-nine percent of Protestants voted for Bush, along with 52% of Catholics
(even though John Kerry was Catholic). Since 1980, large majorities of
evangelicals have voted Republican; 70–80% voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004,
and 70% for GOP House candidates in 2006. Jews continue to vote 70–80%
Democratic. Democrats have close links with the African American churches,
especially the National Baptists, while their historic dominance among
Catholic voters has eroded to 54-46 in the 2010 midterms. The main line
traditional Protestants (Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians)
have dropped to about 55% Republican (in contrast to 75% before 1968). Their
church memberships have declined in that time as well as the conservative
evangelical churches have grown. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, commonly known as Mormons, are overwhelmingly Republican
and vote in line with the Christian right - George W. Bush received 89% of the
Mormon vote. Bush also received almost 80% of the Muslim vote in the 2000
Presidential election. However, his support among Muslims declined sharply
and, by the 2004 election, at least half of those voters supported Democratic
candidate John Kerry or a third party candidate.

Location.

Since 1980, geographically the Republican "base" ("red states") is strongest
in the South, the Midwest, and Mountain West. While it is currently weakest on
the Pacific Coast and northeast, this has not always been the case;
historically the northeast was a bastion of the Republican Party with Vermont
and Maine being the only two states to vote against Franklin Roosevelt all
four times. The Midwest has been roughly balanced since 1854, with Illinois
becoming more Democratic and liberal because of the city of Chicago (see
below) and Minnesota and Wisconsin more Republican since 1990. Ohio and
Indiana both trend Republican. Since the 1930s, the Democrats have dominated
most central cities, while the Republicans now dominate rural areas and the
majority of suburbs.

The South has become solidly Republican in national elections since 1980, and
has been trending Republican at the state level since then at a slower pace.
In 2004, Bush led Kerry by 70%-30% among Southern whites, who made up 71% of
the Southern electorate. Kerry had a 70-30 lead among the 29% of the voters
who were black or Hispanic. One-third of these Southern voters said they were
white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20; but were only 72% Republican
in 2006.

The Republican Party's strongest focus of political influence lies in the
Great Plains states, particularly Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota,
and North Dakota, and in the Mountain states of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah (Utah
gave George W. Bush more than 70% of the popular vote in 2004). These states
are sparsely populated with few major urban centers, and have majority white
populations, making it extremely difficult for Democrats to create a
sustainable voter base there. Unlike the South, these areas have been strongly
Republican since before the party realignments of the 1960s. The Great Plains
states were one of the few areas of the country where Republicans had any
significant support during the Great Depression.

Conservatives and Moderates.

Republican "conservatives" are strongest in the South, Mountain West and
Midwest, where they draw support from social conservatives. The moderates tend
to dominate the party in New England, and used to be well represented in all
states. From the 1940s to the 1970s under such leaders as Thomas E. Dewey,
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, and Richard Nixon, they usually
dominated the presidential wing of the party. Since the 1970s, they have been
less powerful, though they are always represented in the cabinets of
Republican presidents. In Vermont, Jim Jeffords, a Republican Senator became
an independent in 2001 due to growing disagreement with President Bush and the
party leadership. In addition, moderate Republicans have recently held the
governorships in several New England States, while Lincoln Chafee, a former
moderate Republican senator is currently the independent governor of Rhode
Island. Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, and Senator
Scott Brown of Massachusetts are notable moderate Republicans from New
England. From 1991 to 2007, moderate Republicans served as Governor of
Massachusetts.

Trends

As of 2004, the Republican Party had remained fairly cohesive, as both strong
economic libertarians and social conservatives opposed the Democrats, whom
they saw as the party of bloated and more secular, liberal government. Yet,
some libertarians have argued that the GOP's policies have grown increasingly
restrictive of personal liberties, and has contributed to increasing corporate
welfare and national debt. Some social conservatives have expressed
dissatisfaction with the party's support for economic policies that they see
as sometimes in conflict with their moral values.

Corporate power grows stronger as government wanes
November 19, 2011
by Tom Petruno

In the aftermath of the 2008 market and economic crash, the financial and
political power of major companies has only increased while workers' power has
faded amid a global labor glut.

What's more, corporations grow stronger while developed-world governments are
badly weakened — in no small part because of the heavier debt burdens they've
taken on to try to save their economies with stimulus spending, bank bailouts
and payments to the unemployed.

The U.S. ran a deficit of $1.3 trillion in the last fiscal year alone.

California is staring into its own abyss: With tax revenue running well below
projections, the state faces the prospect of further deep spending cuts for
education, child-care programs and other social services in 2012.

Meanwhile, dollars pile up in corporate coffers. The blue-chip companies in
the S&P 500 index are sitting on a record $1 trillion in cash now, according
to S&P. That's up from $647 billion just before the 2008 economic and
financial crash.

Clearly, despite the global economy's disappointing growth over the last three
years, multinational firms overall have prospered. Operating earnings of the
S&P companies are estimated to have reached $231 billion in the third quarter,
a new all-time high. Per-share earnings were up 13% from a year earlier.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with an increase in the Pentagon’s
budget, have led to an increase in total military contracts to over $400
billion, their highest levels since World War II. Private contracting has
grown to such a level that, in 2003, there were more private contract
employees involved in the war in Iraq than uniformed military personnel. These
contracts have been highly concentrated in the hands of just five contractors-
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics-
accounting for over one-third of all Pentagon contracts.

Halliburton’s contract to put out oil fires in Iraq and rebuild the country’s
oil infrastructure generated controversy on several fronts. One of the major
ones concerns the question of why Halliburton was awarded a no-bid, open-ended
7-year contract for their work in Iraq even before the war began. Critics have
contested the Pentagon’s reasoning that the need was too urgent and
Halliburton was the only company capable of doing this work. Another issue is
the “revolving door” between Halliburton and Bush administration Vice
President, Dick Cheney. Halliburton served as an all-purpose logistics support
service under the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). This
program was developed at the behest of Dick Cheney in the early 1990s and
Halliburton was awarded the first contract in 1995, by which time Cheney had
become Halliburton’s CEO. Further, Halliburton made huge profits through this
program, much of them generated through gross overcharging and inflating
invoices to cover “fraudulent war risk surcharges.”[1] Halliburton has also
been accused of breaching its government contract and KBR has been said to
have been systematically “veiling its business practices in Iraq,” [2] thereby
restricting the government’s oversight ability.

The Coast Guard employed Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman in 2002 to plan,
supervise, and deliver several hundred new boats and aircraft in connection
with the Guard’s expanded post-9/11 role.[3] For a number of years, the two
companies used their procurement charge as an opportunity to steer work to
their subsidiaries, and failed to get the best price or the best work. The
Coast Guard ignored frequent warnings from their own engineers about the new
ships’ poor design and potentially unsafe condition. Four years later, the
shipbuilding was halted when the design was finally found to be flawed.

The growth of private contracting has increased not only in the military, but
also in the CIA, NSA, and the Department of Homeland Security. The main
contracts for the personal security agencies in Iraq come from the State
Department, not the Pentagon. Contracting by intelligence agencies has
increased to a point where private intelligence contract employees outnumber
government employees in US intelligence operations. The result of this
burgeoning of private contracting of defense service, surveillance, and
intelligence work is the growth of the military-industrial complex and its
associated problems to unprecedented levels.

Roie Philom is a retired farmer and forester in Kentucky. He lives and farms
on a family farm that has been in his family since the Second World War. His
family has lived in the area since 1792. For that reason he is working on a
semi historical fiction novel that takes place in the area where he lives and
spans several generations from 1812 to the present and possibly into the
future. He is also working on a book of local humor, a book of poetry and
possibly an autobiography. Other projects include making a public domain non
fiction book about the First Kentucky Cavalry in the Civil war available as an
ebook and writing a book about the practice of forestry. In the meantime,
while working on these other projects, he sometimes writes short stories of
erotic content. One in process is fantasy and science fiction. These erotic
stories are in many ways unlike other erotica in that they hopefully emphasis
the personalities and situations of the characters as much as explicit sex.

He has had a desire to write all his life and until he retired simply didn't
have time. He doesn't know if the things he wants to write are the things other
people want to read but he figures the best way to find out is to try it.

The Ad - An erotic
story
A short erotic tale of only 30 pages. The ad offered quite a bit of money for
about three hours of her time. It said, "Must be sexually liberated." Kathy
wondered what that meant. But she did need money to pay this month's rent.
This book contains two short stories. The first is about Kathy and Pete.
The second is about Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice .
Contains erotic content for adults only.

A Male Fantasy
A short story of a man and two women in the forests and farmlands of Kentucky.
A male fantasy of the way the world should be. The three chapters are "Susan,
"Tamara", "Tamara and Susan". Contains erotic content for adults only.

The third is "The Nautch Dancer", a short erotic tale of only 42 pages about
characters in the Old West. It is a western with a difference. It is about
Indian uprisings and mountain men and saloons and preachers as experienced by
a young dancing girl whose culture is from India and France.

Here are the first few pages:

Chapter 1 - Nautch Dancing

Summer 1862

My mother died last spring. She was a whore. She was also a dancer, a Nautch
dancer. She taught me to dance. I don't know why my mother left Paris with
me to come to the wild areas of western Minnesota. For that matter I don't
know why she left her native India for Paris. We arrived here about three
years ago in 1859 with some other settlers. She and I have lived in the
Moosehead Bar in New Ulm since then. I think the owner, Pauline Tabor, paid
the way for her and the other women who work here. She thought the business
would go over well here in the West where there were more men than women.
She was right. The bar is full about every night and the girls do a brisk
business upstairs. The bar is named for the large moose head mounted over the
fireplace opposite the bar in the front room.

This bar is developing a reputation for miles around. You see, my mother did
the Nautch dance the ancient Indian way ending up completely naked by the end
of the dance. That's something unknown here in America. She attracted
business for the other girls. She wouldn't actually take a customer herself
until the end of night. That's the way Pauline wanted it. She paid mama more
just to dance than mama could have made upstairs. That attracted more
customers and made the Moosehead a gold mine for all of us. Mama also got
paid double price upstairs.

Too bad she got consumption and it killed her. Since she died I have been the
Nautch dancer. I don't go upstairs though. The others say I am too young,
but now that I am about to turn eighteen I think I am old enough.

Charlie plays the piano for me to dance. Mama taught him the music from her
homeland. It too is unique in this place. Charlie and Big John, the
bartender and bouncer, are the only men working here. Pauline owns and runs
the place and there are five whores now that mama is gone. They are Martha,
the oldest, Betty just a little older than me, Ada, the heavy one, Lena, the
middle aged black one, and Carol, the prettiest one. Carol is about 23 with
long blonde hair and a big chest and an hourglass shape. A lot of the men ask
for her whenever she is not busy so she is always busy.

Me, I'm just a brown skinned dark haired teenager but I have developed well in
the last couple of years and my curves undulate well when I dance.

My name is Janki Bai but they all call me Jan. I went to school in Paris so I
speak both French and English. I got good grades in school and I enjoyed
learning. I haven't gone to school since we came to America.

Charlie starts playing just before dark and I dance for about four hours with
a ten minute break after every fifteen minutes of dancing. A lot of the men
come to drink and watch me dance. I enjoy all the attention. Some of them
give me money just for my dancing. They throw it on the little stage that I
dance on. Every time one of the other girls comes downstairs one of my
audience slips off to meet her at the bottom of the stairs and she takes him
back upstairs with her.

I start each dance barefoot with just a blouse and skirt. About five minutes
into the dance I slip the blouse off and throw it aside during the dance.
After another five minutes I loosen the skirt and let it fall to the stage. I
get a round of applause each time I lose a piece of clothing. My breasts are
pretty big with dark areoles and long nipples and my pubic hairs are thick and
black reaching almost to my belly button. My pussy lips protrude between my
legs. My skin is smooth and my breasts are firm because I am young. Martha
says she can remember when she was smooth and firm like that. I have a fairly
big heart shaped rear end. There are about three or four days in every month
when I can't dance and business is slower then.

I start the dance slowly undulating to the rhythm of Charlie's music and then
as I dance I become transformed. I slowly unbutton my blouse and imagine
myself as air blowing through a pine tree. My arms form a graceful arch above
my head and my breasts begin to peek from behind my blouse. The men are
usually watching intently by this time with expressions of lust on their
faces. Silently and teasingly I dance and the music reaches out to envelope
me and the audience. I am sex and love incarnate and I am graceful to look
at. Soon I am topless dancing and then I have somehow lost my skirt and I am
naked and barefoot with the strong legs of a girl dancer. The arc my hips
make as I dance grows wider and wider. Slowly ... weaving ... arching my
mound, flexing my knees, I sinuously caress my own body. I bend over at the
end of my dance to pick up my clothes. Mama taught me to always do that with
my back to the audience and that gets a round of applause too.

Big John makes sure that the men are always polite. Pauline makes the rules
and Big John enforces them. Guns aren't allowed. Neither is arguing or
fighting. All the employees and the customers must be treated with respect.
The men sometimes get loud but there is no excessive cursing. Pauline says we
give the men fun and in return they pay us and follow her rules. Most all of
them think that's a good deal. Sometimes if a stranger comes in and gets
drunk enough that he wants to fight and curse the regulars will help Big John
to evict him from the premises. He is welcome to return on another night but
he soon learns the rules.

Coming Soon!Ripples in the Force

A book of semi historical fiction about a farm and a family in south central
Kentucky spanning a time period from 1812 until the middle of the 21st
century, well over 200 years.

The book contains sex, violence, fantasy, history, computer programming,
philosophy and forest mensuration among a few other things. If you don't want
to read about any of these things then please don't read it. Otherwise enjoy!

The book is well over 200 pages in length but almost half of the book is an
appendix containing the author's notes and internet research used in planning
the book.